I can't believe what I have just read.
Ireland has voted to allow same-sex marriage by a vast majority!

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/05/23/ireland-same-sex-marriage-referendum-passes/

Having been to Ireland several times, I am stunned that their previously strict Catholic population have agreed that same-sex marriage should be legal.
Apparently, they believe it to be more a human rights issue than an issue that should be controlled by the Catholic hierarchy.

Good on them.

My Irish husband believes there has been a huge backlash against the Catholic Church, and religion in general, in his original country because of all the clergy and their elders who have perpetrated and covered up paedophile activity in Ireland.

Not only Michael Fitz Patrick and Patrick Fitz Michael agree with the vote but along with Maurice Fitz Gerald and Gerald Fitz Maurice so do the majority of voters.

What a boost for the tourist industry, off to the Emerald Isle for a legal, if not always gay, marriage.
Countries which do not recognize same sex marriage but do recognize Irish state sanctioned marriages will, presumably, have to pass special legislation if they do not wish to accept all Irish marriages.

Is Mise, it won't be a problem for too much longer because if a conservative place like Ireland can legalise gay marriage, then it is only a matter of time before many other countries follow suit, including Australia.

And not before time.

Dear Suse,

Hear! Hear!

A conscience vote in Parliament and
a Referendum for the public is the way to go.

Foxy,

"A conscience vote in Parliament and
a Referendum for the public is the way to go."

Agree; but you won't see a plebiscite; or many of those in favour of same sex 'marriage' agreeing with you.

Is Mise, I fear you may be disappointed with the results of a referendum in Australia on this issue, as I believe we will vote the same as Ireland.

Most intelligent people know that legalising gay marriage won't affect many people's lives at all, but it will strengthen the human rights of the gay people who live in Australia.

I look forward to the referendum, and hope it is the start of a more rational society.

Suse,

There will never be a referendum on the subject.

Dear Is Mise,

Predicting the future is a risky business
at the best of times. Remember all the
predictions that were floated around prior
to the last election.

We'll have to wait and see. Things can change
in a flash.

Is Mise, you may well be right.
I don't think we will need to have an expensive referendum on a subject that most people know will be voted in.
A budget minded Government will just legalise same sex marriage without a referendum.

Here I am agreeing with Tony Abbott on a referendum on same sex marriage in Australia. "referendums are only required for a proposal to change the constitution." As Professor George Williams said "“You could hold a referendum if you wanted but only if parliament authorises it. In which case it would be a plebiscite, or essentially a big opinion poll.” I might add a very costly opinion poll. Gay marriage can be implemented in Australia simply by an act of Parliament, and our politicians should be showing political leadership on this matter. The Labor Party has a clear pro policy, removing it as a moral issue for party members, and should vote accordingly, the Conservatives have no stated policy and therefore should vote as individuals.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/24/tony-abbott-says-no-to-referendum-on-same-sex-marriage-despite-irish-vote

Paul,

Spot on, there will never be a referendum on the subject because such a vote would be a plebiscite, and one ain't the other.

Pedanticism wins!!

Dear Susonline,

While I am glad for Ireland it really does make me depressed about what Australia has become.

It is sobering to think South Australia was the first part of the Commonwealth to give women the vote and after NZ Australia as a nation was the second in the world.

The 8 hour day originated with the Stone Masons in Victoria and spread around the world.

We introduced an aged pension after Germany and NZ.

So many instances of us being in the vanguard of reform movements yet Australia appears to be the last developed English speaking nation to legislate for Gay Marriage in any of its parliaments.

Not a lot to be proud of there.

I think that's great. People have the right to choose for themselves. It's great that they voted for it.

Yes, I know what you mean Steele Redux.
Australia is dragging it's feet on this issue.

I fear nothing will change while we have the holy Abbott at the helm though.
He would be among the few people gnashing his teeth and thinking the sky will fall in over in Ireland.

It is worth keeping in mind that the largest religion in the world decrees death for homosexuality and the vote in Ireland means zilch to them.

Is Mise,

Secularism has tempered Christianity to a point where its adherants no longer follow that part of their theology. I wouldn't be too worried about that anymore.

Dear SteeleRedux and Suse,

Australia may be dragging its feet on this issue
but it appears that its only a matter of time
before things will inevitably change.
The current child sexual abuse scandals
are also widening the gap between people and
the influence of the church. People are rightly
sceptical about everything the church says about
gender and sexuality and this has a flow-on effect
with the church's entire message on morality.
Ireland is a perfect example of this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/world/europe/church-faces-murky-future-as-irish-support-same-sex-marriage.html

The question in Australia is not IF it will happen,
but simply WHEN?

AJ,

I should have used denomination, although if one defines Christian as those Churches that can trace themselves and their core teachings back to Christ, Christianity then becomes smaller that Islam.
Islam is the one that condemns homosexuals to death and such an outlook probably immutable.
Ireland's decision will not affect many Muslims at all, unless some see it as a safe haven.

Suseonline,
You merely degrade anyone who disagrees with you as unintelligent and irrational. This is bigotry and not rational and intelligent discussion.

Please give logical reasons why no one will be affected by giving homosexuals the term "marriage" to their sexual relationship. States that have granted such have been plagued by legal action by homosexuals against people standing up in good conscience for their right of conscience. Prime example "Sweet Cakes" who were fined $135,000. for not accepting an order to bake a cake depicting homosexual marriage.

The issue is discrimination and the activists will not lie down with just the term marriage, they want to criminalise anyone who in good conscience objects to their lifestyle. They are as passionate about their cause as those affected by racial discrimination.

Is Mise,

So then what Christian denominations do you consider to not be following the core teachings of Jesus? Perhaps the Westborough Baptist Church, but they’re not very big. And even then, Jesus was inconsistent enough to support what they do to some extent. Second to them would maybe be the Catholic Church since they believe that all good people go to Heaven when Jesus said that it only matters what one believes (then the good deeds are suppose to come after that).

This idea, however, that Jesus came to chuck out all the old nasty bits in the Old Testament is nonsense. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus even says that not a jot or tittle of the law will be changed until Heaven and Earth have passed away, and that anyone who breaks the least of those laws will be the least in Heaven (Matthew 5:17-20). When Jesus speaks of fulfilling the law, he just means that although God still enjoys the smell of burning blood, we no longer need to sacrifice animals to him. He's over that now, apparently, and Jesus replaces the need for all those other sacrifices.

The Old Testament instructs us who we can enslave, how much we can pay for them, and how much we can beat them. That’s never trumped in the New Testament and the same goes for the laws and moral instructions regarding homosexuality. In fact, the New Testament goes even further by telling slaves to obey their masters with respect, even the cruel ones (1 Peter 2:18-25).

This soft apologetic from modern Christians that Jesus was all about loving one’s neighbour as oneself and getting rid of all the nasty bits in the Old Testament is a nonsense claim made by Christians who, I suspect, have not read their Bibles - as so many haven’t. And not beyond the four Gospels even if they have.

Is Mise

<<It is worth keeping in mind that the largest religion in the world decrees death for homosexuality and the vote in Ireland means zilch to them.>>

Is that what Christianity decrees, after all it is the largest religion in the world by number.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Paul et al,

OK, I'll modify that.
It is worth keeping in mind that the second largest religion in the world decrees death for homosexuality and the vote in Ireland means zilch to them.

Lol Is Mise, what does it matter what Muslims, or any other religion followers, think of what Ireland has voted for? The fact is, gay marriage was legally voted in, with nothing to do with religion at all.

My husband phoned his brother in Ireland last night, and he lives in a small village in County Limerick. He was saying he had voted for gay marriage and, amazingly, all the elderly Catholics he spoke to in the village had voted it in as well.

Apparently, the previously devout Catholic village were very angry with the recent clergy child sex abuse scandals, and the unmarried mothers who had their babies 'stolen' from them years ago by Catholic institutions.
They feel disillusioned with the previously revered Catholic priests and nuns, and church attendance has plummeted.

Josephus, you have given examples of American people who were actually proven guilty of discrimination against gay people, so what is your point? Obviously, anyone who discriminates against others because of their sexual orientation is breaking the laws as they are in America. That has nothing to do with granting gay people the legal right to marry.

You are probably right in saying I shouldn't call people unintelligent if they don't agree with me, but I do find this subject frustrating in that I don't like others trying to force their religious ideals on unwilling people.
In any case, I have been called much worse for my views on abortion rights for women, but that is apparently ok if it is not the religious anti-choice stance preferred by homophobes.

Suse,

"Lol Is Mise, what does it matter what Muslims, or any other religion followers, think of what Ireland has voted for?"

Yeah, that's what I said.

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;

“It is worth keeping in mind that the largest religion in the world decrees death for homosexuality and the vote in Ireland means zilch to them.”

Which was patently absurd.

You then attempted to qualify it with;

“I should have used denomination”.

Rubbish my friend, you got caught out flaunting and trying to propagate your hyped up fears.

Indonesia has the largest population of the followers of Islam in the world.

“The national criminal code does not prohibit private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults.”
Wikipedia

A country that did come within a whisker of legislating the death penalty for homosexual acts was the highly Christianised nation of Uganda. And who was it that prompted then assisted in writing of the legislation?

Quote

One of the first to investigate links between American conservatives and the African anti-gay movement was Kipya Kaoma, a Zambian clergyman living in Boston. Homosexuality was illegal in Uganda under existing colonial laws, he explained, “But nobody was ever arrested or prosecuted based on those old laws. People turned a blind eye to it. Homosexuality was not a political issue.”
“That changed in 2009, Rev Kaoma said, when a group of American evangelicals led by Pastor Scott Lively, a self-proclaimed expert on the “gay movement”, held a series of talks in Uganda. Mr Lively warned audiences that the “evil institution” of homosexuality sought to “prey upon” and recruit Ugandan children in a bid to “defeat the marriage-based society”.

End quote

What do you do think America would look like without a strong bill of rights keeping the Evangelists in check?

Perhaps checking your facts a little more vigorously in the future would be a good idea, unless of course you remain determined to never let the truth get in the way of a good prejudice?

SteeleRedux we must apologise to is Mise, he was right the first time. Yes indeed,

<<It is worth keeping in mind that the largest religion in the world decrees death for homosexuality and the vote in Ireland means zilch to them.>>

Let me present the evidence on Is Mise's behalf.

Pastor Steven Anderson (Christian) of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona recently appeared on an Irish radio show.

To quote the good Pastor Anderson "I Believe That the Government Should Use the Death Penalty on Homosexuals."

Is Mise, are you a member of the Faithful World Baptist Church? If not, why not! They do think like you.

Hi Suseonline

Please don’t assume that all, or most, Christians oppose marriage equality, simply because some Christians think their faith demands they oppose gay marriage. I’m a (straight, middle aged, married) Christian and support marriage equality, as do most of my Christian friends and acquaintances. Nor are we particularly unusual. At a recent synod of the Perth Anglican church (roughly equivalent to a party’s annual conference), a significant majority of both clergy and lay representatives voted to support gay unions. Alas, a church is not a democracy, and the vote was overturned by the Archbishop, but the vote shows that Christians do not necessarily take a single line on this issue.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-07/anglicans-in-perth-vote-to-recognise-same-sex-marriages/5002762

I did qualify it with 'denomination' in accord with Paul's link, and corrected my statement with,

"It is worth keeping in mind that the second largest religion in the world decrees death for homosexuality and the vote in Ireland means zilch to them [Muslims]."

The which, of course, has nowt to do with my personal attitude to homosexuality, in which I do not indulge.
I have mentioned previously that I've had soldiers under my command who were homosexual but they were fine soldiers, even if Paul found them to be figures of fun.

The only homosexuals to whom I would apply the death penalty are those that are convicted as serial paedophiles.

Rhian, of course not all Christians are against gay marriage, I never said they were.

Would you agree however that it is the very religious Christians and other non-Christians who are the noisy minority who oppose gay marriage and other 'sins' they believe we should all stay away from?

Ireland is the most Christian country I have ever been in, and I lived there for a year. All my husband's relatives are practicing Catholics and yet they all voted for legalizing gay marriage.

This was only able to happen because while they all still believe in a God, they no longer believe the so-called holy men, like the Bishops and Archbishops , are infallible or even vaguely in the same league as this God.
So they voted against their wishes. Good on them.

What right or purpose has the State got to register social unions that two persons can now agree to draw up in a legal contract of agreement. Homosexuals are not happy with that they want to confront persons of conscience who believe homosexual acts are abhorrent social activity. It is civil conflict they want, so they can lay charges of discrimination against persons who in good conscience find such acts abhorrent.

'Persons of conscience' Josephus?
So those of us who support equality in marriage have no conscience?
Those who seek to discriminate against others have no heart.

Josephus,

"What right or purpose has the State got to register social unions that two persons can now agree to draw up in a legal contract of agreement...."

Er....the "State" has been registering "social agreements" that "persons" have been drawing up and calling "marriage" for yonks.

Suse,

"So those of us who support equality in marriage have no conscience?"

Lol!...one has to first take into account that religious moralists always take the moral high ground by means of their "beliefs". Whether or not those "beliefs" bare any resemblance to sound rationality is apparently outside the realms of polite enquiry.

Suse,

"....they no longer believe the so-called holy men, like the Bishops and Archbishops , are infallible...."

They never believed that Bishops and Archbishops were infallible; suggest that you check with your husband before posting on Catholicism.

Suseonline, "Those who seek to discriminate against others.."

If it is 'discrimination', why the hell hasn't the Human Rights Commission - which is forever hanging out for sensationalist headlines to justify the unjustifiable ie., its own continued existence - ever ruled that it is discrimination?

'Marriage equality' and 'rights' are red herrings. In Ireland it was a triumph of Marxist inspired propaganda that took advantage of the information and tools psychologists have delivered through understanding what makes us human. Scurrilous advertisers do the same.

It is the political 'Progressives' and a few Gay Pride activists who lead and they are quite adept at using a media that has long lost any principles and ethics, that is if they had any in the first place.

Homosexuals have in the broad and by a substantial majority always valued their freedom from the herd and their outlaw, unregulated status. Honestly, as if they really want the in-your-face attention and prissy conflict sought by the gays. Now public bureaucrats, courts and lawyers inform them of the status of their relationships and decide their assets on break-up.

How could that be counted as a gain, except by the very few 'gays'(sic) who are well-off politicians and public servants and can get a share of that superannuation and spouse travel (with the taxpayer paying for both)?

Ex-Labor leader Latham was right to slam L'il Willie Shorten who once again is having a knee-jerk reaction to 'Whatever She says'. This time it is the another ambitious but even less able womyn, Tanya Plibersek, who is undermining Shorten for a knifing later.

Whatever She says,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf4nlIEHfaU

Latham slams Labor,
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/story-fnizhakg-1227371979220

Suseonline,
I note you believe there is only one opinion, others of convicted opinion cannot exercise conscience on their opinion. Obviously you are a sympathizer with homosexual activist bullies and have reduced marriage to contract between two lovers; and anyone else's is heartless.

Homosexual activist relationships last less than seven years and are unfaithful to each other, as gay pride and Mardi demonstrates. In fact two women living together each with children last less than that. Marriage should be for life and for the protection of children. Children come of as incidental to the relationships of homosexuals.

Suseonline

Yes, I agree a noisy minority of opponents of equality cite religion as a reason for opposing gay marriage. It can create the impression that this is the only authentic Christian position, and represents the views of most Christians. That’s not true.

I also agree that the Irish vote represents a remarkable low point in the authority of the church in Ireland. I too applaud this. The Church as an institution is not the same as the church as a community of believers, nor does it always faithfully reflect the values of compassion and inclusion proclaimed by its founder. Sometimes it deserves a slap in the face. In recent years, it has got many issues to do with sex, sexuality and gender wrong: whether refusing female equality, denying same sex marriage or the appalling record of committing and covering up sexual abuse. Small wonder its authority has declined.

Josephus

I don’t doubt you are sincere in your beliefs that homosexual acts are abhorrent, and homosexual marriage should be forbidden. The question is whether your beliefs should prevail over those who, in equally good conscience, believe exactly the opposite, and furthermore believe that your opinions are bigoted and abhorrent. Most importantly, is your distaste at others’ sexual preferences and activities sufficient reason to prohibit them? The Western Liberal tradition would say “no”. Unless you are directly and materially harmed by what other people do in the bedroom or the registry office, you have no right to prevent it, however much you disapprove.

Well said Rhian, and I agree absolutely.

Is Mise, I don't need to ask my husband about Catholics, because I grew up in a strict Catholic household and suburb, and all my schooling was given by nuns and priests. We had the alcoholic Father Brown to tea every Friday!

All the people I grew up with, and all the ones my husband knows in Ireland, used to believe in everything the priest or his elders said...no questions asked.

This is obviously true of many Catholics, as evidenced by the years of silence re the multitude of kids sexually abused by clergy all over the world.

Have you heard the disgusting evidence currently being given by that old paedophile priest Ridsdale to the Royal Commission?
Many Senior clergy knew about his crimes since the early 1960's.

No one believed the few kids who did report him over the years because no one thought priests could do anything wrong!

Suse,

I'm glad that you don't have to ask any guidance about Catholicism; your continued blunders on that subject will be amusing.

Of course all of the Irish did what the Church told them, that's probably why there were no Catholics in the IRA after about 1918/19 when the Church threatened excommunication for any Catholic that was a member; thereafter it wan an exclusively Protestant and Atheist organization.

I prefer to accept as fact what I learned in biological science and physical reality that only the union of a man and a woman could produce a child. That marriage was ordained by the State to raise and protect those offspring. This I see from the birds and animals that surround me every day. Two hens do not produce chicks, it takes a rooster to compete reproduction. Two mares do not produce a foal, or two bulls a calf, or two bitches do not produce a pup.

The only purpose of the State is to record population growth, protection of children and demise of population; any other record is merely entering the bedrooms of lovers, which serves no statistical purpose other than to check on welfare cheats, which may catch two single mothers on welfare living together with children.

//Two hens do not produce chicks, it takes a rooster to compete reproduction. Two mares do not produce a foal, or two bulls a calf, or two bitches do not produce a pup.//

Awww, isn't that nice? Jopsephus has discovered the birds and the bees. Or the birds, at least. Bee sex is a bit nastier: one domineering female with a harem of drones to service her sexual needs. Mind you, bird reproduction isn't that simple either. I wonder what Josephus makes of a cuckoo's commitment to have their young raised by their biological parents.

I also wonder what he makes of the common garden snail, one of the many species of simultaneous hemaphrodites out there. They don't have any distinctions between male and female: two snails make another snail. Kinky or what?

Hmmm Is Mise, who to believe?
My Irish husband, and all his family who still live in Ireland....or you......?

I guess your shock and horror that a predominantly Catholic country like Ireland could vote in the dreaded gay marriage has clouded your judgement.

Josephus, what are you on about?
How many times have others mentioned on this site that there are also many people who get married who either don't want, or can't have, children?
Are you saying that only fertile young people should get married?

Marriage should be about love between two adult people who want to formalize their union with marriage, and that is the basic requirement, regardless of gender, or their ability or choice to have children or not.

Suse,

"Hmmm Is Mise, who to believe?
My Irish husband, and all his family who still live in Ireland....or you......?"

Me, 'cause I paid attention to my lessons and I know that Catholics are taught that infallibility is only granted to the Pope and then only when a decree is on Faith and Morals and is binding on the whole Church.
Isn't that what you were taught?

"....I guess your shock and horror that a predominantly Catholic country like Ireland could vote in the dreaded gay marriage has clouded your judgement...."

You guess wrong, actually I couldn't care less, except that I see it as seeds for future trouble.

Is Mise, we were taught lots of rubbish from an old book, but I remember the blind reverence given to priests even if you don't!

You do care that gay people may be given the right to marry legally because it would adversely affect your own marriage, remember?

Suse,

"Is Mise, we were taught lots of rubbish from an old book, but I remember the blind reverence given to priests even if you don't!"

What has blind reverence got to do with infallibility?

As far as blind reverence goes I can remember being at a public meeting in Galway when the then Bishop of Galway was jeered by the faithful.
He was berating all and sundry because the locals wouldn't have a certain tinker woman (a notorious foul mouthed drunkard) as a neighbour.
The crowd was giving the Bishop a bit of a serve and one particularly loud voice shouted,
"Ye've got a big house, do yer Christian duty an' tak' her in yerself!!"
The Bishop said not another word and stormed off the podium.

Seems that my memories of the Irish are a bit different to your's.

My paternal grandfather, one Eoghan O'Flaithbheartaigh, was visited by the curate of the local parish, who admonished him for not attending mass, the granpa replied to him in Irish.
"Sorry," says the Irish priest "but I don't speak the language".
"Well" was the blindly reverential reply, "when ye can speak to me in our own language, then I'll come to yer church".

"You do care that gay people may be given the right to marry legally because it would adversely affect your own marriage, remember?"

No, I don't remember, kindly refresh my memory but remember that you are having a bit of trouble with English.

Not a problem Is Mise, let me help you with that selective memory :
"Suse,
It is discrimination against those that hold that their marriage to a person of the opposite sex is demeaned by same sex marriage.
Changing the law is discrimination against such people.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 2 May 2015 11:44:26 AM"

Sorry if I beg to differ on your little experience of Ireland and the Irish.
I think I will side with the Irish living in Ireland at the present moment.....you know....the ones who have lived there all their lives?
I will go with what they say about the current chaotic, archaic Catholic Church thanks.

The Irish who bothered to vote are really not very bright. Most kids fiddled with by Catholic Priests were ones attracted to same sex. In voting to condone perversion more kids will be fiddled with.

runner,

Do you have any evidence that you could link me to proving that most of these children were homosexual? Are you blaming their homosexuality on the fact that they were molested? That's what fundamentalist Muslims do when it comes to women who don't "cover up".

should read the priest (not the kids) were obviously attracted to same sex

I know what you meant, runner. But do you have any evidence for this clarified assertion of yours?

'The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.5 (5. K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275. '

Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population. they constitute about a third of child molesters.6 (6. K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia," op. cit. Also, K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197, cited in NARTH Fact Sheet. )

A nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts from 1971 to 1991 revealed that more than 2,000 boys reported molestations by adult Scout leaders. (Note: The Scouts, who have 150,000 Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters, ban hundreds of men each year from scouting out of concern that they might abuse boys.)8 (8. Patrick Boyle, Scout's Honor (Rocklin, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1994), p. 3l6. )

'A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged In homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.9 (9. W. L. Marshall, et al., "Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters," Journal of interpersonal Violence 6 (1991): 323-336, cited in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don't Want You to see," Colorado for Family Values Report, Vol. 14, March 1994. )'

Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads in the Advocate, the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine and discovered that "chickens," a common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads.10 (10. Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., "A Content Analysis of 'The Advocate,"' unpublished manuscript p. 18, quoted in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don't WantYou to See," ibid. )

Really Runner?
We can all find sites online that prove our points, but I found one that totally debunk all your flawed so-called scientific research results.

Check it out yourself. It remains a well known fact that one doesn't need to be homosexual to be attracted to male children. That is a false 'fact' put out there by hysterical Christian fundamentalist intellectually challenged folk...

Psychology.ucdavis.edu

"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."

Of course, all the scientists of today could be wrong, and you right, but I seriously doubt it.

Sorry Runner, the link I wanted to illustrate above is here:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

//In voting to condone perversion more kids will be fiddled with.//

Wasn't the vote to legalise same sex marriage, not kiddy-fiddling? I don't see how allowing gays to marry is going to encourage them to fiddle kiddies. Can you explain how this is supposed to work, runner?

Because prohibiting Catholic Priests from marriage doesn't seem to have discouraged them from kiddy-fiddling. Some people argue that the exact opposite is true. So which is it? Does allowing marriage encourage kiddy-fiddling or does prohibiting marriage encourage kiddy-fiddling? Could it be that neither is the case, and kiddy-fiddlers are just sickos who will fiddle kiddies no matter what their marital status?

Suse,

"Not a problem Is Mise, let me help you with that selective memory :
"Suse,
It is discrimination against those that hold that their marriage to a person of the opposite sex is demeaned by same sex marriage.
Changing the law is discrimination against such people."

Yes, I wrote that but it in no way means that I feel that my marriage is affected, as with your misunderstanding of 'infallibility', you have an English comprehension problem.

What I am talking about is that some people, who feel that their marital status is being demeaned, are being discriminated against.

"Sorry if I beg to differ on your little experience of Ireland and the Irish"
The public meeting with the Bishop of Galway is a matter of public record and can be found in the archives of The Connaught Tribune whicch reported it in detail.
You'll just have to take my word for the Granda's response.

I do rather like the way that the IRA's ranks were stripped of Catholics when the Church forbade membership, perhaps you would care to comment on from where it then got its members?

Human sexuality is a powerful passion within every healthy human. Many persons without a sense of boundary will take advantage wherever possible. That some adults feel sexually safe with children others with same sex adults both are a perversion of a healthy boundary.

The homosexuals that attend Mardi believe any willing partner for a one night stand is OK. Those homosexuals that seek a lifelong partner must publicly condemn such practises. However the general public, police, army and Lord Mayor's that support such practises have been brain washed to believe Mardi is a great way to promote same sex practises. It is all about bringing in money for the city.

That is a ludicrous assertion, Josephus...

"The homosexuals that attend Mardi believe any willing partner for a one night stand is OK."

Any willing partner? Nonsense. Have you seen some of them? Sexually attractive, not! Some of us have standards.

On the other hand the heterosexuals that attend any nightclub believe any willing partner for a one night stand is OK.

And, if they can get away with it, that sometimes includes or is in spite of their current girl or boyfriends.

"Benidorm Behind the Scenes", "Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents" and "The Magaluf Weekender" are easily accessed sociological proofs.

"Many persons without a sense of boundary will take advantage wherever possible."

As do many who repeatedly step over that boundary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFjspwWsUbg

thanks Susie u always seem to confirm that feminist and regressives have no interest in facts. Just do a social degree that fits your narrative. The sickening part is you pretend to care about kids. At least some of the homosexual lobby is honest about its intentions.

Runner, your depraved mind continues as usual.

Where in all of my posts have I said I don't care about kids?
I care about all kids, unlike you, who most certainly doesn't care about Muslim kids, or kids on refugee boats, that's for sure.

Is Mise, your poor knowledge of Ireland continues.
Many, many Catholics populated the ranks of the IRA.

There were very few people of any other religion living in the south anyway, until very recent times. They included many Catholic clergy sympathizers in their ranks too.
I have personal knowledge of this fact, unlike you.

Suse,

"Is Mise, your poor knowledge of Ireland continues.
Many, many Catholics populated the ranks of the IRA...."

I can't believe it, you have taken my satirical post on the IRA at face value!
You do really have an English comprehension problem.

"....There were very few people of any other religion living in the south anyway,[7% of the population usually] until very recent times. They included many Catholic clergy sympathizers in their ranks too.
I have personal knowledge of this fact, unlike you."

How do you know that I do or do not have personal knowledge of the IRA? Besides which the IRA was not confined to unoccupied Ireland, which you mistakenly refer to as the 'south', the northern most part of Ireland is in the Republic, thus it is possible to stand in the 'south' and look south at the 'north', the Occupied Territory.
There have been some notable Protestants in the IRA.

But you fail to explain why the IRA was predominantly Catholic when these same Catholics, who according to you were brainwashed into believing that Bishops and Archbishops were infallible, still joined the IRA even though the penalty was excommunication, the highest penalty in Catholicism.

Perhaps, just perhaps or even perchance you are wrong in your assertions that Irish Catholics always unthinkingly did what the Church wanted.
Perhaps you might also tell us why the late Dan Breen,Fianna Fail TD, was elected to the Dail for so many years, even though he was Ireland's most prominent atheist, and thus not loved by the Church.

One wonders why so many Catholic voters cast their ballots for an unbeliever, if they were so influenced by the priests, as you claim.

Satirical post Is Mise?
Yeah right.

The fact remains that the Irish voted in legal same-sex marriage.
Isn't that marvelous?

Suse,

We know that, but how about answering the questions or, based on your deep understanding of the Irish people and Catholicism, tell us all where I have got it wrong with my limited understanding of the Irish people.
Tell us why the IRA existed in a 93% Catholic country when Catholics were forbidden by the Church to join the IRA.

Now don't skip out, just enlighten us all.

Lol Is Mise, you are never boring!
Like all Catholics, the Irish Catholics are selective about what they took from the good book, and from their holy elders.

It has only been in the past few years, as the disgusting truth has come out about the years of lies and cover-ups about child sex abuse amongst their so-called holy men that the Irish Catholics are really deciding about their lives for themselves.

But hey, I can't tell you anything about Catholicism, as you apparently already know it all.

Suse,

"Like all Catholics, the Irish Catholics are selective about what they took from the good book, and from their holy elders."

contrast the above with your's of the 24th inst.

"Having been to Ireland several times, I am stunned that their previously strict Catholic population have agreed that same-sex marriage should be legal."

Previously strict and now selective in previous times; I rather think that the selectivity is on your part.

By the way, Suse, with that Catholic upbringing of your's you should know that 'Elders' is not a Catholic term although it is commonly used in the Jewish religion and in some sections of Protestantism.

"But hey, I can't tell you anything about Catholicism, as you apparently already know it all."

You are right in the first part of your above sentence but wrong in the second, I'm still learning even though I majored in 'Religion'.

Is Mise, I think you will agree with me that there is a world of difference in Irish Catholics agreeing to allow legal gay marriage, as opposed to the Catholic hierarchy asking it's flock not to join the murderous IRA group?

The holy hierarchy had to at least be seen to discourage the bombings and shootings of Protestants and Catholics, even if secretly they were hiding the perpetrators within their ranks.
This is, after all, a favorite MO of this church...

Suse,

"Is Mise, I think you will agree with me that there is a world of difference in Irish Catholics agreeing to allow legal gay marriage, as opposed to the Catholic hierarchy asking it's flock not to join the murderous IRA group?"

I don't agree at all, you are the one that is saying that Catholics in Ireland always did what the Church told them to do.
The Church did not ask its flock not to join the IRA, it forbade them to do so under pain of excommunication, the highest Church penalty.

If you know anything about the history of Ireland you will know that the Catholic Church has always opposed Irish Nationalism and the Republic and has always supported the British.
Individual churchmen have supported the 'Movement' and I've met a few priests who were active Volunteers but they were going against the orders of their Bishops.

My Limerick born and raised Irish husband, and his older brother who has lived there all his life, say they never heard of any ex-communication for all the IRA Catholics in their areas through the years, so obviously it was just all talk Is Mise.

My husband says of course the Archbishops had to be seen to condemn the IRA, but many of the clergy were in it all up to their necks too, including several in their own parish!
So maybe you need to revisit your Irish history lessons?

I meant to add Is Mise, that the first time I went to Ireland, in the late '80's, I was dragged along to church every Sunday, and was shocked to see some young guys collecting money 'for the cause' at the church gates.

Apparently it happened regularly, with the full knowledge of the priests.
Hypocrites as always...

Suse,

I see that you missed my "....Individual churchmen have supported the 'Movement' and I've met a few priests who were active Volunteers but they were going against the orders of their Bishops."

These were priests who were 'on active service' against the British forces.
I was living in Ireland in the 1970s and never saw any overt collecting for the IRA outside of Connemarra, the only collection that I did hear of east of the Corrib occurred in Ath Cinn in '79 when the local bank was robbed.
A friend of the family was the bank messenger's wife and used to take him a hot lunch every working day.
The Bank closed for lunch and she would go in through the back door.
On this particular day a young man was lounging in the doorway.
" Ye can't go in, missus." he says, so she told him who she was and her errand.
"Sorry" he says "yer still can't go in"
She insisted.
"Will ye piss off" he says, letting her see his pistol,"we're robbin' the bank".

Ah well Is Mise, there are obviously many, many churches in Ireland, and I was told that people collected money for the IRA outside churches and other public gatherings in 1987 on a regular basis.
I remember being horrified, and glaring at the collector guys as I walked past.
My brother-in-law was annoyed at me for doing that!

In any case, that country has come a long way since then and I am glad the 'troubles' are pretty much over at present. All the same, I still don't want to visit Northern Ireland any time soon.