Homosexuality does not equate to peadophilia, Paul. You certainly like to stick your oar in anytime anything even remotely related to homosexuality is mentioned here. The lady doth protest too much methinks…

joocy_froot, it’s a little unfair to suggest that Paul is a closeted homosexual. Not all homophobes are secretly gay. Some are just a**holes.

Exactly, joocy. Just scroll up the the ‘Subway guy’ story. He’s married to a female and a father of two. Paedophiles are not gay or straight; they are paedophiles. It’s only malicious and ignorant people like Paul who try to allude otherwise.

Give it a rest Paul, we already know where you stand in regard to your views on gay people.

Jaysus,
I’m looking forward to that beer after that onslaught Sarge…
I forgot, all Gay Men and Women should never be questioned about positions of trust and responsibility near children.
What’s strange about this article is that it is more vocal about reasons as to why he isn’t really suitable for a leadership role, but we’re expected to ignore that because he’s gay…

Know wonder you’re divorced Paul and don’t get to see your kids. You sound like a total Tw*t.

Paul, all adults who are responsible for children should be vetted and vetted equally (regardless of their sexuality). No one is saying otherwise. He was a perfectly suitable candidate for the role. He chose to remove himself from candidacy because of the letter he received that was full of ‘insinuations and threats’.

Paul,

Your comments are vile.

You have ABSOLUTELY no basis for making any comment on the suitability of that person.

For the record, Kiernan’s only opponent failed to reach the minimum of 50% plus one of turned out voters and as a result the position remained vacant. The people voting are men and women who have known Kiernan for many years and trust him.

But of course, don’t let that get in the way of a good ole fashioned bit of homophobia.

“Paul, all adults who are responsible for children should be vetted and vetted equally (regardless of their sexuality)”

That is the mentality that has turned all men in particular and adults into suspects. Where all contact between adults and children is treated with suspicion, where men are barred from entering some parks unless accompanied by a child.

The mentality that has created a situation where adults will more likely pass by a child in need of comforting than stop and be viewed as suspicious and have their collar felt. It is the world of the paedo panic, stranger danger and guilty until proven innocent.

“No one is saying otherwise.”

Speak for yourself Lloyd.

That’s pretty much what I was getting at TheoWolfe… Except it seems to be my fault for even bringing it up.
In my view Kiernan dropped out because he was over sensitive to the possibility of criticism – not a good trait for a leader.
But woe betide any who even address public opinion.

Theo, that’s the world we live in. We’re just more aware of it these days. The Catholic Church, the BBC…. All adults who work with children should be vetted. Are you saying they shouldn’t?

I guess thanks to your sense of Outrage you’re prevented from reading beyond what you want to read, Lloyd.

Tell me, Paul.

Yes I am saying that mostly people do not need to be vetted. It is pretty much worse than useless. It treats all adults and men in particular as pedophiles unless proved otherwise.

It is only the world we live in because of people who think in the way that you appear to have created it.

Theo, you mean people like the one who wrote the letter to Mr. Gildea?

I doubt if that person’s intentions were totally honourable Lloyd. I would guess that they are using the atmosphere of suspicion and fear that has been created as a lever in a personal battle.

Exactly, Theo. So vet everyone. Equally.

No Lloyd, wrong direction, vet nobody unless there is a valid and demonstrable reason for having doubts or suspicions about a particular individual.

All adult members of Scouting Ireland are subject to Garda Vetting and go through Child Protection Training.

Your uninformed opinion Paul, would disagree with the majority of the voting membership who as a result of Kiernan withdrawing his candidacy, still did not elect his opponent.

Theo, unfortunately we are beyond that. What’s been exposed in the last couple of decades proves it. All adults who work with children should be vetted as standard. Children are all too vulnerable and need protecting. Vetting is private, harmless, controlled and only a threat to those who have something to hide.

Paul, Theo maintains that standardised vetting panders to a climate of fear and suspicion which we shouldn’t be so willing to submit to. What you’re suggesting is that only men who are gay should be vetted. You claim to not be gay but I wouldn’t want you anywhere near my kids. Word is you’re barely allowed near your own.

“controlled and only a threat to those who have something to hide.”

‘Nothing to hide nothing to fear eh’.

The road to a police state. It is not harmless, it is corrosive and puts barriers between adults and children, parents and strangers, adult and adult.

It assumes everyone is an abuser until rubber stamped. But the rubber stamp is worse than useless, it only picks up that someone has a conviction or something untoward recorded against them.
It harms everyone and society, destroys trust and undermines relationships.

Paul all men and women should be questioned about positions of trust near children regardless of their sexuality…its called Garda vetting.

No they shouldn’t Sarah, start thinking critically.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/why-child-protection-has-gone-too-far

Theo, not vetting failed spectacularly. You don’t need me to remind you. Going forward, no one is saying vetting is 100% effective but if it’s even somewhat effective (and it is) in preventing even one child from getting hurt it’s worth the potential downsides you mention.

“Theo, not vetting failed spectacularly.”

How so Lloyd?

Is there no price too high for supposed protection of “one child?”

Theo, I can’t believe you need me to point this out but for example, the rampant child abuse perpetrated by the Catholic Church all across the globe occurred before vetting was introduced. The prices you mention are not nearly too high to pay for the protection of even one child, no.

I don’t know what age you are but the excesses of the Catholic Church in Ireland were well known at the time, it happened with the tacit indifference of the Irish society.

Physical abuse in schools was well known and tolerated, the conditions in the Magdalene laundries were also known to society. There was no need for vetting it was largely done in the semi open. It is only a change in attitudes that has made it unacceptable. That, and national amnesia, where society at large pretends it is surprised by the revelations.

And why stop at criminal vetting? There are mutterings in the UK about disclosure of mental illnesses being a reason for barring. What else might we vet for? People with the wrong opinions?

Are these prices too high? How far would you go?

The change in attitude is paramount, of course, which has paved the way for vetting which is just a tangible, practical and private method the authorities can help identify people who shouldn’t be allowed access to children.

Theo, To be clear Garda vetting applies to many other organisations including voluntary work with adults with disabilities. The process of Garda vetting does not only serve to stop sexual abusers, there are a number of reasons why a person may be deemed unfit to work with young people or vulnerable adults. Garda vetting is an innocuous process. It requires the filling out of a form with details of that person and the role they wish to cleared as suitable for. Is it a bulletproof check? No, but by its sheer existence it acts as a deterrent to an unfit person even applying. Given that Garda vetting is opt in for voluntary groups (I believe) a person also opts in by applying to join. These are the rules as recommended and informed by child protection professionals (those I’ve had the good fortune to be trained by and come into contact with in Scouting Ireland have been especially impressive), I genuinely do not see how this is a road to a ‘police state’. The point of this process, the training, the constant refinement of both is to protect the young people for whom Scouting Ireland are responsible. How can that be a bad thing?

They don’t opt in Sean, there is really no choice, submit or else. Because you don’t see it as a step on the road to a police state does not mean it is not.

It is a bad thing because it is corrosive. It assumes everyone is an abuser until given a clean bill of health by the state.

It is a bad thing because it causes adults to pass on by if a child is in need, it is a bad thing because it puts barriers between adults and children putting inter generational friendships at risk, it is bad because it makes adults fearful and anxious about interacting with children. It is bad because it part of a slippery slope. It is bad because it changes the mindset of society at large which views every with suspicion.

It is a bad thing because it makes the state the arbiter of societal relationships involving children reducing parents to bystanders.

It is still overwhelmingly the case that child abuse takes place within the family but the stain of guilt is placed on ordinary people who must prove themselves worthy.

*views everyone with suspicion.

Theo, there’s good reason why everyone is now viewed with suspicion. Not viewing people with suspicion didn’t work. Vetting is good because it helps children not get abused. The disadvantages you list are unimportant next to that.

“Theo, there’s good reason why everyone is now viewed with suspicion.”

I thought I had dealt with that in a previous comment regarding the complicity of Irish society in the abuses of the past. That societal conservatism has been replaced by a different but equally dangerous conservatism. The unwillingness or fear to challenge the orthodoxies of yesteryear has been replaced by an equally fearful unwillingness to challenge the new orthodoxies of state and police excesses. It is however disappoint that intelligent people like yourself Lloyd, Sean and others are so much in thrall to the “benign” state.

*It is however disappointing.

We really need an edit function.

Yes, you had, and that’s now in the past, thankfully. This is now. Most people don’t view vetting as a ‘police excess’. As Sean said, it’s a fairly innocuous process yet the very real benefits of helping protect children are significant and far outweigh any of the perceived threats you mention. It’s a necessary evil, if I can put it that way to you.

Well I don’t agree it is innocuous and it does little to protect anyone. Can you document the “real benefits?”

It is not a necessary evil but it is an evil alright.

As Ireland has given up on independence and always follows what happens in England this is where Ireland is headed next.

http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/could-teacher-suspensions-open-schools-up-to-legal-claims/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30897127

And there is no opposition to any of this. In fact, most are behaving like cheerleaders. Depressing!

What’s the alternative?

I have already outlined that. Vetting is like an annual Car Test, only worth the paper it’s written on until you drive away and then it is not even worth that.

Trust parents and teachers and each other to look out for children. Or has that trust been already undermined too much by the state. And that’s the problem, we increasingly look to the state to run our lives.

The more we suspect each others motives and fear each other the more we lose autonomy and personal agency.

Very noble concepts there, genuinely, but the sad reality is that they don’t go far enough in protecting innocent and trusting children from the sexual predators who so purposefully and single-mindedly target them.

Theo,

You have zero basis for saying any of this. “I reckon” is not how best practice is arrived at.

You’re “can’t we all just get along” stance, while admirable is not realistic, nor would most parents wish it to be.

If you ask a parent, would you like your child interacting with a registered sex offender or violent criminal, they’d say no. If we have the capacity to check then why the hell shouldn’t we? This is the safety of their children.

I see zero evidence (nor have you presented any) of this becoming a heavy handed approach nor of it being horribly intrusive, have you ever filled one out? It takes all of 10 minutes. If you have an argument past “can’t we all just get along” or “bloody government”, please please make it. Stop quoting opinion pieces.

This is best practice informed by law makers, child protection professionals, risk assessors, and a whole host of others. “I reckon” just simply isn’t a strong enough case to change something that the people who “know” say helps. Again, not foolproof, but better than nothing!

“Stop quoting opinion pieces.”

Where have I quoted opinion pieces? I have provided links to reports, if you wish to read them or not. That’s called informing yourself of the issues around a subject.

The length of time to fill out a form is not the point, the point is that I would be seen as a threat in the first place and am required to prove my innocence is the problem.

“informed by law makers”

“Law makers” are no more infallible as the pope and I don’t believe it is best practice, more lowest common denominator.

It in itself is heavy handed and unnecessary and doesn’t need to become so. I doubt if it has prevented any misdemeanors but has provided much corrosion.

It is not better than nothing, it is worse than nothing, because it provides a false sense of security.

I have informed myself on the subject, from the people charged by the State and other non-state organisations.

“You” are not seen as a “threat”, stop personalising. “A person” may be “unsuitable”, that does not mean a threat.

You are not required to prove innocence, simply suitability. Do you object to having to give references for a job? Getting a guarantor or offering collateral on a loan?

You’re right, law makers are in no way infallible. They are however informed, they listen to specialists, they deal with case studies, their views and policies evolve, the lowest common denominator comment makes no sense. Some guy saying “I reckon” is more close to the lowest common denominator.

How do you define heavy handed? How do you determine that best practice is unnecessary? You don’t think it’s prevented any, well you have zero basis for saying that. What “corrosion”?

As someone who works in the youth volunteer area, I can tell you it doesn’t give a sense of false security. There are three layers, vetting, training and vigilance all are needed.

Theo, nobody is aware one is being vetted except the person being vetted and the professional whose job it is to vet them. It’s private and confidential. It’s just filling out a mortgage application or something. It’s doesn’t create ‘corrosion’. Nobody is recommending abandoning common sense and looking out for one another. Vetting is merely another tool we can use to help keep paedophiles away from children, which is paramount. I think your gripe might really lie with the media and the ‘witch hunt’ mentality it fostered?

It is not the application of the process that is the problem it is the process itself.

Of course it is corrosive. If you have children and take them to school you will demand that anyone who works there be vetted, that’s not private, you will demand that all staff prove they are not a danger to your children. The default position being they are a danger until proven not to be.

You choose to apply for and fill in an application for a mortgage. It is completely different.

As Sean has indicated above not only must you be vetted (prove yourself innocent), you must submit to “training” I don’t know what that consists of and “vigilance” i.e. spying, continually regarding colleagues and others with suspicion.

Yes Theowolfe, because no one should know the rules and regulations regarding their industry, and they should be left to behave as they please until one of them does do something and then we can all stand back aghast and say “but how could this have happened?”, sounds great..
Except that it really, really doesn’t.

It’s totally private!

If you apply for a job as a teacher and are deemed unsuitable you aren’t paraded through the school and pelted with rotten fruit. It’d be dealt with quietly and professionally.

If a parent didn’t demand that adults with sometimes unsupervised access to their children be (to a reasonable extent, e.g. filling in a form) shown not to be an obvious risk, then I personally think they could do a better job.

The default position is NOT danger, or guilt. That’s nonsense.

It’s not completely different, you choose to apply for a job, ask to join a voluntary organisation. In almost every walk of life people are challenged to a greater or lesser degree when necessary to show that they are who they say they are (would you drop passport checks?), or that the should be allowed access to something (IDing people in bars – would you drop that?), prove they can do something safely (driver’s license)… This isn’t a police state whatsoever. It’s simply common sense.

Once again, vetting is not proving innocence, it’s a reference check with the State. I have no idea why “training” is in quotations, quite naturally, adults interacting with young people should be instructed in what is considered healthy and appropriate way in which to do so. You’re right though, you don’t know what that consists of. So don’t attempt to give an opinion on it.

No, vigilance is not “spying” vigilance is the continuous application of what you’ve been taught is a correct and appropriate way to interact with young or vulnerable people.

I’ve also just noticed that you’re FMan, so how about you just disregard everything I’ve said and continue on with your nonsense.

It’s a waste of time TheoWolfe,
People who are prepared to give up freedom in order to be granted “rights” will never understand what they are giving away

On what basis do you not agree with vetting, Paul?

Paul and TheoWolf. The two most vocal people apposing marriage equality on the journal prior to the referendum. Basing their objections on their homophobic deluded notions that children need protection from gay people are now calling for the scrapping of garda vetting of those who work with children. One could only wonder is their some hidden reasoning behind their ideology.

TheoWolfe explained his reasoning and I agree with it.
The issue of gay men and women overseeing children is exactly the same for heterosexual men and women. We now live in an age where the State must approve your “suitability” for a position of trust, if you wish to work near children.
Firstly, that’s not trust.
Secondly, that places all men (mainly) under suspicion which is why it is easier for the vast majority of society to believe that children are safer in the care of women.
Thirdly, for those who might not have noticed, the Gardaí don’t seem to be faring too well in their battle against political policing.
The upshot is that the more you trust the State with your security, the less freedom everybody will have.
Every boyscout should know that.

Unless you yourself are involved in such an organisation and give as much time to the youth I don’t feel you have a right to comment on the matter, when you give up most weekends and go out of your way to make sure that youth members are safe and that they are getting the most out of the organisation. I feel an ignorant response is simply unfair and unjust. Hike a mountain in his shoes and then feel free to comment on the matter. #scoutsisforeveryone! there is a place for everyone in such an organisation and the organisation protects its members more so than many others.

Paul,

There is no question as to the suitability of people working with young people or vulnerable adults due to their sexual orientation. That’s not even in play.

You’re right, we now live in an age whereby trust needs to be earned, because when it was granted without qualification it was abused. Why do you feel it’s such a burden? I would argue that it is trust, we place trust in groups like Scouting Ireland to keep children safe, the best method they have found to do this is vetting applicants, training leaders and reminding them through best practice what their responsibilities are.

You’re right it places men under suspicion, that’s exactly why we don’t require women to undergo the exact same process. Again, you’re totally wrong.

The Gardai are providing a service in this instance, they provide a factually based check for groups like Scouting Ireland.

We had a system whereby “trust” was handled by small groups, accountable to no one, with no external vetting and paid the price for it.

Oh and the term “Boyscout” is defunct in Ireland, as Scouting has been open to all without distinction of gender for a VERY long time. Every person commenting on the state of Scouting in Ireland should know that.

Finally Paul or Theo, do you know the criteria under which a person may be flagged as unsuitable? Are you aware of the detail of checking?

Paul your hypocrisy is beond believe. “The issue of gay men and women overseeing children is exactly the same for heterosexual men and women” In the lead up to the marriage equality referendum you Paul made it you business to comment on ever lgbt article voicing your opposition to lgbt people having anything to do with children.

Actually good point, on one hand everyone here on the yes side for the referendum realised that adoption was a strictly assessed method if becoming a parent, and with the good reason of child protection in mind.

These guys seem to think that it should be a free for all – unless you’re gay, but that’s not homophobic at all apparently.. Discrimination based solely upon sexual orientation, but not homophobia. Get your head around that if you can..

No, Paul, the upshot is simply that the more vetting that occurs the less freedom paedohphiles have to abuse children and nothing is more important than that.

You are a hateful person JJ.

He’s right though, Theo.

What exactly is he right about Lloyd?

Are you suggesting he is right about the implication in his comment ” One could only wonder is their some hidden reasoning behind their ideology.?”

How exactly is pointing out someone’s obvious flip flopping on an issue “hateful”?

No I’m not hateful person Theo I’ll leave that to you. Your pity good at it. After all you have publicly on several occasions here on the journal refereed to the pride flag which represents love equality and peace as the flag of hate. There are scientific studies that prove homophobic people are in fact closet gays who will not accept the fact that they are gay themselves. I believe that that is your hidden agenda. Prove me wrong.

Here is the proof https://www.google.ie/search?q=homophobic+people+who+are+gay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=xO7VVaCNJIfc7AbOpYLQDQ

Shanti . Some people know that tne best way to bring up a child is with a mother and father. Nothing to do with gay people… how is that homophobic ?

Ah Tony, I was wondering where you were.. Now we have the hat trick of insufferable homophobes :)

And may I ask why specifically “Some people know that tne best way to bring up a child is with a mother and father.” I mean what are they basing that on precisely? What research? What evidence? Because there’s plenty of evidence of kids who weren’t better off just because they had a mother and father..

Right… so we need research now to prove the best place for a child is with a loving mother and father ! lol. Don’t make me laugh. How is this homophobic though? It’s nothing to do with people being gay.

Well you need evidence if you wish to assert that having two loving mothers or two loving fathers is somehow worth less than a loving mother and father by virtue of the fact that there’s two of one rather than one of each.

See, in your first comment – you just said “a mother and a father” now you are qualifying it with “loving”. That single word is the only thing that actually matters – the genders of the parents are irrelevant so long as they’re both loving.

shanti…. I don’t need evidence to prove what is simply common sense to most people. I would have thought loving patents would go without saying also, who would wish unloving parents for a child. As regards genders being irrelevant well that’s just wishful thinking within the gay community, really it’s just pc nonsense.

Ah, the appeal to common sense, more irrational nonsense.. You never disappoint Tony :)

Of course loving is the most important part of parenting – but please specify why exactly the child needs one parent of each gender. What can a mother + father do that two mothers or two fathers cannot? And we are talking about the act of raising a child here – not procreation. (Actually, the conversation was initially about whether a very qualified man who just happens to be gay should be allowed to lead the scouts – do you object to that too?)

Just saying “it’s common sense” is a cop out. Are you trying to insinuate that men are not capable of providing what women are? That they are somehow inferior as parents? Because that would be rather sexist.

A person’s capacity to be a good parent is not related to the genitals they posses, nor is it related to who they find attractive. It’s related to their personality, their individual personality traits, their strengths and weaknesses. Unless you are trying to suggest that all men are the same as each other and all women are the same as each other – but that would be demonstrably ridiculous.
Simply being a mother and a father doesn’t guarantee the ability to be good parents.. So why is this even held up as some sort of ideal? It’s not the gender that matters, it’s the actions of the parents. You seem to have predetermined that gay people aren’t capable of being good parents, and THAT is homophobic.

Tony you couldn’t be more homophobic if you tried.
You are homophobic because in-spite of all the research that has been done and has been presented to you on parenting you refuse down blank to except what is blatantly obvious. THE GENDER OF THE PARENTS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE QUALITY OF PARENTING. That Tony is a fact. Homophobia will not change facts.
You are homophobic because in the lead up to the marriage equality referendum you aggressively campaigned for a no vote by presenting your deluded outed dated notion that in order for a child to have the best possible access to an up bringing they would have to be raised by two people of the opposed gender. Yet you could find no creditable research to support this view.
You are homophobic because the referendum had noting to do with raising children or who they are raised by. You knew that absolutely noting would change in this area regardless of the outcome of the referendum. But yet you used this argument to try and support your homophobic agenda of standing in the way of loving couples having access to marriage.
You are homophobic because you were willing to sacrifice the happinesses of Children and their families that are been raised by, and who will be raised in the future by same sex couples as you tried to prevent them having their families protected by the constitution. And then you had the cheek to state that your were only concern was for children while your hatred for gay people was so great you didn’t give a dame about those very same children as you activity campaigned to insure they would be denied the protection of the constitution in order to support your homophobic agenda.
You are homophobic because you openly stated that gay people who were willing to adopt a child or bring a child in to the world through surrogacy or sperm donation were only doing so for selfish reasons while at the same time actively showing your support for straight couples who were doing the same thing.
You are homophobic because you tried to demons gay people at every opportunity you get to do so. You based your campaign on lies and tried to stir up a atmosphere of hatred for gay people because you could find not one logical reason to stop marriage equality.
Would you like me to continue ? I could go on giving examples all night.

Tony .
“I don’t need evidence to prove what is simply common sense to most people”

Can you please explain if most people agree with you that it is common sense why your comments in the lead up to the referendum got more red thumbs that any body else. Or did your blind homophobia prevent you from noticing that.
Maybe you can find some answers on this link.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=homophobic+people+who+are+gay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=xO7VVaCNJIfc7AbOpYLQDQ

You know what amazes me most ?, I think you two actually believe in the nonsense you spout….lol. You are determined to say that anyone that knows and understands why children need mothers and fathers are homophobic but you can’t because the truth is it has nothing to do with gay people !! I don’t believe 2 horses should be allowed to bring up children either, is that discrimination against horses or is it just obvious that proper parents would be more appropriate? Red thumbs ?…God help you James…lol. keep dreaming folks.

The flag of hate is the emblem of choice for the anti free speech and anti freedom of conscience mob who take to twitter to vilify, abuse and spout hate at anyone who does not share their world view of homosexual marriage.

They demand anyone who holds an opinion contrary to them be placed in the social stocks, be sacked or be silenced. Whether it is Brendan Eich, Katy Faust or Tim Farron to name but three, are labelled homophobic, suffering from a mental illness and they must be put beyond the pale.

They see themselves as liberal and enlightened but are the most hateful and authoritarian around today, they fly their flag of hate with pride in their hatefulness.

TheoWolfe and Tony

Why is it, that as soon as your side is being called upon to back up their statements, that you see that as an infringement of your right to free speech?

Are you seriously that deluded, that you think free speech means, you can have an opinion and no-one else is allowed to challenge that?

Back up what Larissa? Be specific.

Tony.
Why specifically is a child with two parents of the same gender at a disadvantage? SPECIFICALLY, because you have yet to make a coherent, rational argument.

Theowolfe, when you’re partial to the sort of hateful rhetoric you guys spout then you can’t get your knickers in a twist when people take issue with it. If you were trying to claim mixed race marriage was wrong we would say the exact same to you. Because your position is neither based in reason or in sense – all it is is based in hate.

What hate Shanti? I am not one of “you guys” I am an individual with my own opinions. Now please point me to any “hateful rhetoric” I have used.

Every time you try to insinuate that a person has less worth than you by virtue of them being gay, you spout hatred.

You actively campaigned against gay people being allowed to enter the civil contract of marriage. You held them to higher standards than heterosexual couples are held to (by insisting that it had anything to do with children).

You wish to reinforce the notion that other human beings on this planet are somehow “less” than you, simply because they are attracted to people of the same sex.

That is no less hateful than claiming that black people are only good for tilling fields for their masters. If you can’t see that then there is absolutely no hope for you.

When have I insisted that anyone is of “less worth?” Again be specific.

I did not actively campaign against homosexual marriage. As Ibsaid at the time I was totally phlegmatic about the issue.

What I did do however was challenge the premises that were being advanced in support of it and robustly challenged the blatant censorious attitudes to anyone who took s contrary view to to what became a new orthodoxy.

I defended people like Brendan Eich, for instance, who was forced out of his job by a hateful Twittemob for expressing an opinion. I tried to highlight how ordinary people werecowed into keeping silent because of the fear that was created around expressing an opinion not in line with the homophilic line.

You have no basis for what you insinuate in your comment. If you have please present it, specifically, not general platitudes.

@Tony: I am not the one that is spouting nonsense. I have scientific proof that back’s up my argument. You have non. I personally know know over a hundred gay couples that are now raising and have raised children. Not one of them have lost out by not being bought a mother and father. I doubt if you know one. The no campaign on the lead up to the referendum could only find three people in the entire world that said other wise.

My first question to you is why do you think you now better? You don’t.
Saying every body knows it is common sense is not an answer. The western world disagrees with you. The best you can do is come up with your own ill-informed opinion.
The fact that you refuse to except that the informed scientific evidence that has shown and is continuing to show the rest of the developed well educated world that it is COMMON SENSE THAT CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE TO BE RAISED BY A MOTHER AND FATHER to do just as well and in some aspects such as tolerance and acceptance of others shows you that you are wrong.
And that is evidence that you are homophobic. So you see tony the truth has every thing to do with gay people.

My second question to you is why did your and the rest of the no side tell the blatant proven lie that same sex marriage would have effect on whether or not children would be raised by a mother and father if you are not homophobic?

My third question to you is why did you bring in the topic of surrogacy in to the debate when it is also would have any baring on weather or not children would be raised my a mother and father if you are not homophobic?

My fourth question to you is why in your last post did you insult me and every other gay person who are and have raised children by comparing us to to horses raising children if you are not homophobic?

My fifth question to you is why do you insult me and every other gay person that are, have and will in the further raise children by saying we are not proper parents if you are not homophobic?

To summarize Tony using children being raised by a mother and father as an excuse to stop gay people from getting married when clearly they have noting to do with the subject mater is the very same as saying You think gay people shouldn’t get married because you don’t like oranges. One thing has noting to do with the other. And you think you are not homophobic lol Who do you think you are fooling.?

Oh I almost for got in your own words “You know what amazes me most ?, I think you two actually believe in the nonsense you spout….lol. “

@TheoWolfe

You know, what i find strange about you, is that you so willingly jump to the defence of anyone who is spouting homophobia, yet, you have no issue with these people insulting or name calling anyone who is campaigning for equal rights, like your friend Tony.

The biggest threat to freedom of conscience and free speech is coming from the homosexual lobby followed closely by the global warming alarmists.

Those anti enlightenment groups need to be challenged and persuaded that people should be allowed to hold and express opinions that are not fashionable. Fashionable opinions don’t need to be defended Larissa.

Everyone from Obama to most Irish politicians and almost all European politicians have expressed their support for the new orthodoxy so there was no dearth of support for that view. Anyone expressing the most mild an innocuous “homophobia” is set upon by all of the above and others such as BBC, RTE. Why would anyone else need to join in?

You’re allowed to express them. But people are also allowed to challenge them. Ask you to back them up, disagree… Don’t like that, tough.

@TheoWolfe

Why do you feel the need to defend homophobia, if you don’t think LGBT people are worth less than anyone else, and should therefore be allowed to be discriminated against?

Expressing a belief or an opinion is not “homophobia.”

Just because it is in disagreement with you or the whole homophilic narrative. Homophobia is bulls*it word wit the intention to shut people up. If someone disagrees, just call them a homophobe or a bigot, suffering from a mental illness, their view can be cast aside or ignored because it is irrational. That is part of the hatefulness of the homosexual lobby. You must submit to our view or else.

I have already explained why it is necessary to defend the expression of unfashionable views. I repeat, they need defending, because it is necessary for free speech. Fashionable views don’t need defending. As I mentioned several times in other threads, I opposed Clause 28 in the eighties and supported those who opposed it. That was unfashionable at the time. Oh how the tables have turned. The homosexual lobby now use the same tactics that were used against them in the past only with more vigour and greater opportunity.

@TheoWolfe

You just don’t get it, do you? There is no excuse for homophobia! So, if some homophobic nutcase voices the “opinion” all LGBT people shut be put to death, you will be there defending them too?

Are you defending homophobic violence as well, as “Aww they’re just expressing an opinion2

Is it okay, if these so called opinions lead to the murder, and, or suicide of LGBT people, because e.g. someone at their workplace is expressing the “opinion” that LGBT people are less woth than anyone else?

Is it okay, for people to send hundreds of letters and Emails with their “opinion” to LGBT people, harassing them until they commit suicide?

Is it okay, that in the US, since January of this year already 16 transwomen have been murdered, because someone, somewhere expressed the “opinion” that being trans* is an offence worthy of murdering and mutilating people?

And please, tell me, what is the so called homosexual lobby?

It is you Larissa that doesn’t get it. Tucked away in your little cocoon demanding that anything that might hurt your feeling or challenge your world view must be banned or silenced or both.

But that is the starting point of all censors and despots. The modern day censors now reach for the suffix “phobia” to enforce their censorship and conflate words with action which you have just done. But then that’s par for the course and have just proved my point.

So basically, what you are demanding is the right, for anyone to spout hatred without the right of the people that the hatred is aimed at to defend themselves, you’re all for free speech, but not if your opinion is challenged. You, sir, are a first class hypocrite!

Oh, and just read the second part of your comment, you are supporting what’s unfashionable? How quaint, murder is quite unfashionable, so you’ll support that too? Theft is unfashionable, how about that?

You call it hatred because it suits you. I find your attitude and opinion that people be silenced as hateful. Should you be silenced?

Everyone has the right to defend themselves but if you take the case of Brendan Eich who expressed an opinion that he did not agree with homosexual marriage was set upon by a Twittermob demanding he be sacked, got personal threats and forced to resign. That is much more that defending yourself, when he mentioned no one specifically.

“You, sir, are a first class hypocrite!”

Who do you think you are, Lisa Simpson?

I will defend anyone’s right to speak freely, even you Larissa despite your jaundiced view of what constitutes “defending” yourself. Where I will challenge that right is when you endeavour to silence people with the “wrong opinion.”

@TheWolfe

I’m not saying people should be silenced, I’m saying people should not be surprised to have their opinions and statements challenged, disagreed with and discussed, or even being asked to back statements that they make, but apparently, that’s too much for you to understand, you think, once an opinion has been brought forward it should be immune from any attack on it, but that’s not how free speech works!

You constantly use the term “homophobia” and its variants. That is designed to shut people up. By all means challenge views you don’t agree with but don’t pepper your comments or challenges with words like homophobia, homophobe or bigot.

I have never opposed anyone asking for statements to be backed up, can you point to one comment I have made that I have?

Where have I said that any opinions should be immune from criticism or attack. What I have objected to is the use of the tactics I have already outlined to have the effect of silencing opinion. Now, that’s not how free speech works, like when a preacher is locked up for saying homosexuality is a sin, the silence from homosexuals on that matter was deafening, except perhaps from Peter Tatchell.

Theo: Wake up man will you. You think that the pride flag is the emblem of anti free speech because some one dared to throw a few insults at you in response to the insulting hateful ideology that the love gay couples have for one another is un-wordy of marriage.

The pride flag is the emblem of the exact opposite to what you clam it to be. It represent the freedom to love and stand up and challenge those those who claim that the have the right to anti free speech and anti freedom of conscience for gay people who dare to love who they do.

You have the nick to cry if a minority gay people take to twitter to vilify, abuse and spout hate back at those who share the hate filed view of denying gay peoples the right to marry the person that they love. Those very same people whom many of would spit at insult beat up and even in some cases murder gay couples for daring to hold hands in public.

You defend Brendan Eich, who ran away from his job after only two weeks like a cowered when he was challenged to explain his hateful comments his donations of thousands of dollars to hate organizations in supporting Proposition 8,who try to deny gay people of their rights and using his position of influence to fuel even more hatred for all ready persecuted gay people.

You defend The gay hating Katy Faust who attempted to destroy the families headed by same sex couples by using the widely discredited works of the likes of Mark Regnerus and Sotirios Sarantakos. in an attempted to back up her own flawed research.

You defend The gay hating Tim Farron who compares gay people to fish and frogs. The same man who promotes the ideology that has been proven to be highly dangers and life damaging to gay people that homosexuality is some how curable. An ideology that has destroyed the life’s of so many young gay people who were forced to go through this type of therapy by their parents.

You have the audacity suggest that these three influential gay hating people are merely expressing an opinion. They have been silenced by their own chose as they can not back up or justify their hateful work.

We do not just see our selfs as liberal and enlightened. We are the liberal and enlightened promoters of the freedom to love and acceptance. And we will continue to fly our flag that represent all that is good with pride in spite of those like you who hate us.

The hate flag represents the illiberal, intolerant and hateful ideology which you have just demonstrated in your comment. It is classic illiberal liberal nonsense.

Such a narrow view of debate. No matter what the content of opinions, everyone has the right to wrong and that is what should be challenged not the right to say that which is wrong. That which cannot stand up to scrutiny will fall.

Oh Theo. This is not America, you don’t actually have freedom of speech here.
There are laws against blasphemy, laws against defamation, laws against making threats, laws against harassment – and there’s th equality act which says it’s illegal to discriminate under any of the 9 grounds – one of which includes sexual orientation.

So sorry, but your argument literally doesn’t belong here. If you don’t like that, you’ll need to get working on legislation.

As for “just expressing an opinion”, so you’re saying that you defend neo nazis expressing their opinions? How about the KKK? See, in America they’re allowed to express their hateful bile, as are the WBC. But not here in Ireland.

By the way, in your previous incarnation of Fman you made plenty of hateful comments, but changed your username to avoid having to stand over them – how very convenient..

And PS, claiming that two people who wish to make a commitment to each other should be relegated to marriage lite (civil partnership) is deeming them as “less”.

The referendum never had anything to do with adoption, surrogacy or children so all of these arguments were no more than red herrings to cover up the true reason. That those advocating “no” wanted to ensure that the contract of marriage was reserved solely for heterosexual couples – implying that homosexuals were “unworthy”.

If you can’t see that, then you are willfully blind.

“And PS, claiming that two people who wish to make a commitment to each other should be relegated to marriage lite (civil partnership) is deeming them as “less”.”

Apart from the fact that I never opined on that, it is still a big leap to suggest that that is the case.
I never opined on adoption, surrogacy or children either, so I think you may be addressing the wrong person.

“By the way, in your previous incarnation of Fman”

Can you point to any? I know though that Either Eilbhe O’Nolan or Sean Gallagher had that account banned as far as I can work out, I think it was because I pointed out Stephen Fry’s past misdemeanors.

Now that is hate. Otherwise I would not have had to set up a new account. How very inconvenient.

“There are laws against blasphemy, laws against defamation, laws against making threats, laws against harassment – and there’s th equality act which says it’s illegal to discriminate under any of the 9 grounds – one of which includes sexual orientation.”

Do you believe the law is infallible?

Well Theo, no user here has the power to ban you, they can only report – it’s up to the mods to ban you. And they don’t unless you’re breaking the rules. So no sense blaming others for your own actions.

Also, no, I don’t think the law is infallible, and woukd take issue with elements of it myself – the point is that if you wish to bang on about freedom of speech you should realise that this does not exist here. So you’re just being idealist in order to cover your own ass.

I notice you didn’t comment on whether you should be defending neo nazis and the KKK.. See, most people consider their motivations to be based upon hatred which stems from a deluded notion that their race is somehow superior. Exactly like people claiming that homosexuals are inferior and therefore not worthy of marriage.

Either you support them all in your unfettered defence of freedom of speech, or you’re just hiding behind that argument because it’s convenient.

Theo Your hypocrisy is unbelievable. You claim that every body has the right to free speech. You claim that the word homophobia and its variants are designed to shut people up. But yet you fail to see that the hateful things and the lies that people like you say and have said about lgbt people are and were designed to shut gay people up and did so for hundreds and hundreds of years. Now that a small number of gay people speak freely and high light this fact that you are a hater of all things lgbt you claim that we are trying to take your free speech away from you. Even tho so many young people in Ireland are still afraid to tell anyone that they are gay.
Tell me exactly what part of the vile things that you and the rest of the haters say about gay people are not designed to shut us up and shove us back in the closet?
Their has been articles on the journal about Russia ban on even mentioning the word gay in front of people under the age of 18. You came on here defending the Russian government right to do this. So don’t dare suggest that all you are doing is defending the right to free speech.
All Larissa, Shanti, Sean, myself and others are doing is exercising our right to free speech.
You are a Homophobic Hypocrite Theo. And I reserve my right to assert this fact through the medium of free speech.

Jimmy, You need to accept that when people say I a child needs a mother and father wherever possible it is not a slur on gay people. It’s nothing to do with gay people ! So you can shout homophobe all you want it still doesn’t change the fact the best way to bring up children is with normal parents. It’s what kids would want anyway, what kid would choose the embarrassment of having 2 Dads or 2 mams ? The sooner you accept this the easier you’ll sleep at night. I don’t really care what lifestyle you choose to live just don’t let your fantasies come before what’s best for a child.

I’m guessing the terms “racist”, “white supremacist”, and “anti semitic” are all just terms designed to shut people up too..

I realise that but I believe one of them “reported” a comment about Stephen Fry which had the consequence of having the account banned, so it’s the same thing.

“So you’re just being idealist in order to cover your own ass.”

And your evidence is?

I would not ban any speech. Is that clear enough? What part of I believe in free speech do you not understand? That’s why I support the Institute of Ideas and Manifesto Club and do not support the UK organisation Liberty because it is equivocal about free speech, Shami Chakrabarti even supports Leveson.

The ideas of the KKK for instance has not been defeated by banning it but by the power of argument and debate. It is a marginal organisation because its idea have been defeated in open discussion.

Similarly neo-Nazi groups.

” Exactly like people claiming that homosexuals are inferior and therefore not worthy of marriage.”

That really is a spurious comparison. There are varied reasons why people oppose homosexual marriage and to compare most of them to the KKK etc.

It is dishonest and disingenuous to compare them to such groups. It is another tactic to silence.

“I’m guessing the terms “racist”, “white supremacist”, and “anti semitic””

They often are but not always. But your attempt to conflate sexuality and morality with race is also pathetic and another tactic used to silence.

Why precisely should gay people have been denied the same right to commit to one another as heterosexual people then? The only difference was their sexual orientation – this suggests that there is the mistaken notion that a heterosexual couple is somehow “superior”, much like those who believe that to be white makes you “superior”.

Keep wriggling Theo, because you’re not doing a good job of trying to claim that discrimination is somehow different when it’s about sexual orientation.

As for Tony there, that is naked homophobia. Implying that gay couples are “abnormal”, or that children would be “embarrassed” to have same sex parents.. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary.. Ill informed, assumptive and flat out discrimination – which when you are discriminating against homosexuals is called homophobia. Same way discrimination against people based upon the amount of pigment in their skin is termed racism, and discrimination against Jews is called Anti semitism.. By all means, try to claim different – all you’re doing is sailing down a river in Egypt.

Ooh, morality?? So you’re claiming homosexuality is immoral now?
The fact is that they are the terms used to describe discrimination against coloured or Jewish people – homophobia is the term for discrimination against gay people.. Sorry if you take issue with grammar.

” But yet you fail to see that the hateful things and the lies that people like you say and have said about lgbt people are and were designed to shut gay people up and did so for hundreds and hundreds of years.”

Can you provide examples of what I have said please JJ? I cannot be held responsible for “people like (you) me” (whatever that means) say or do.

Can you point out the comment regarding Russia?

“You are a Homophobic Hypocrite Theo. And I reserve my right to assert this fact through the medium of free speech.”

You can say it but it doesn’t make it a “fact” JJ. It is merely an opinion. Now calm down before you have a stroke.

Yes, for many it is a moral issue. For fundamental Christians it is clearly a moral issue, as with many religions.

Tony you need to accept that when people say a child needs a mother and father where ever possible IS a slur on gay people, single parents AND the children that they are raising. You have every think against gay people why else would you have lied through your teeth in the run up to the referendum by claiming that same sex marriage would have a negative effect on children when same sex marriage had noting what so ever to do with children. So you can stop claim that you are not homophobic. It still doesn’t change the fact that the best way to bring up children is with normal parents like gay parents or straight parents. both are normal. It is what all he kids would want anyway, what kid would chose the embarrassment to be brought up by some one who is not there parents whether they be a mom and dad or a dad and dad or a mom and mom. The sooner you accept this the easier you’ll sleep at night. I don’t really care what lifestyle of hate and homophobia you choose to live just don’t let your fantasies of what you consider to be the perfective family come before what’s best for a child. Surly to drag a child away from their mother or father simply because his mother or father is married to some one of the same sex is not in the best interest of a child. It only serves to suite your fantasies Tony of what the best type of family is.

See the stupidity of your statement now tony? I have proven my case to you several times. You have noting to back up your position . Tell me again who is letting their fantasies about what a family should be come before what’s best for a child? Answer you Tony.

OK, so it’s OK to denounce a person as “immoral” over something that they never asked for nor have any control over?

See – while a gay person will be gay no matter what they do, the person screaming about morals chose those morals. They made a conscious decision to make judgement upon another person and to make their objections known.

Same way making derogatory comments about skin colour, gender, disability etc are generally considered to be poor taste or outright ignorant – because the person making them made a conscious decision to demean others based upon traits of their genetic make up that they have no control over.

Now I’m sorry. But of those people the only ones with a conscious choice are those spreading hatred. I can’t get on board with that. If you want to hate someone because of something that they chose to be – then that’s fine. But if you want to start pretending like something that you were born with makes you “superior” or more deserving of rights than others, then please don’t get your knickers in a twist when people start telling you to cop on to yourself and stop being so darn bigoted.

Theo if you want examples look back over every comment you have posted on lgbt related article on the Journal. For example what part of calling the the pride flag the flag that represents the hate of gay people not hateful. lol.

No body has asked you to be responsible for me. If you are incapable of been responsible for your self well then you should consider that the accusation you claim was made about your mental health earlier may have been in good faith. Might I suggest in the nicest possible way you see your doctor in relation to that one

Can I point out the comment regarding Russia? I don’t have the time to right now.
look back over the articles they are full of them.

You are right Teho My saying You are a Homophobic Hypocrite . And I reserve my right to assert this fact through the medium of free speech doesn’t make it fact It a fact. It is what you have said asserts this as a fact.

There is no need to worry i am quite calm and far from having a stroke. I am well used to the hateful cowedly homophobic bullies that hide behind a keyboard.

Now could you please address the points I have made. In summery pot kettle. I have to go now but I’ll be back tomorrow to see how you have get on with that little task.

Calm down Jimmy, take a few deep breaths and try to write that again. In English would be appreciated.

Tony, to the best of my knowledge *James* (not Jimmy, something tells me that if that was what people called him on would be what he had his name down as) has stated before that he is dyslexic. This may make your comment appear a little…. ignorant.
Perhaps try engaging with what he said? But that’s right, you never do.

So I’m supposed to guess that Shanti ? Its news to me. As for calling him Jimmy, he and you insult me all the time, but then gays can do no wrong isn’t that right ?

Well Tony, it’s very easy to spot the difference between some halfwit who can’t spell and someone who is making a largely coherent argument with some spelling mistakes – especially as many of those mistakes look like they are spelling phonetically as opposed to just being lazy..
But I guess you need to be paying attention.

I will stick my hand up and say that when you make nonsense arguments and say disgraceful things I have called you out on them, but I don’t call you Anto, because that’s not the name you go by. It would indicate that I was talking to someone else or deliberately trying to deny your identity. And why on earth would anyone attempt to do that to someone? It seems rather pointless and childish.

You see Shanti, that’s the problem, I’m not seeing any coherent argument. As far as I’m concerned anyone that thinks gay parenting is equal to straight parenting is a half – wit, to use your phrase. and no you’ve called me worse than Anto

You are entitled to your own opinions JJ but not your own facts.

If you cannot point to a particular comment to demonstrate your assertion my guess is you are whistling in the wind.
The flag of hate has become that because of the behaviour of those that choose it as their emblem when attacking people with opinions they don’t agree with, like you have just done ad hominem.

Dont worry Tony I am quit calm. Yes Tony Shanti is correct I am dyslexic. Haven said that my miss spelling is hardly an obstacle to such a self proclaimed learned man as yourself from understanding my points especially since i have being putting them to you for months now with out you addressing them.
I would appreciate it if you would address these points rather than taking a cheep shot at my spelling. After all you claim that your opinion on the subject matter is only common sense. So again indulge me explain your argument to this less than average dyslexic boy here and show us the evidence that supports your learned opinion.

Oh and in relation to your little rant about having been insulted by gay people. I wouldn’t worry to much about what the gay community think of you as it is clear from the homophobic drivel that you spout that you are a walking insult to yourself. Maybe you should work on that.

and here we have Theo again, feeling attacked for having his comment challenged, it’s hopeless with this guy, he is too thickheaded and narrowminded to even grasp the concept of opinions being open to challenge and if someone’s opinion is, that e.g. gay people should be killed, then this person is homophobic, do you understand that, Theo?

Larissa, I think your reputation is well known, I have seen your name quoted on other threads yesterday with some hilarity.

As it happens, my opinion wasn’t challenged, just ad hominem comments. That’s not challenge, it’s defeat.

Oh well done Theo, use some transphobic bullying to bolster yourself.

You seem to think that garda vetting is an insult, but yet you treat LGBT people with suspicion and derision. You argue against people having to simply get their names looked up on pulse to see whether they’ve got convictions before being permitted close access to vulnerable people. As someone who is regularly vetted in their line of work I can tell you now it’s not an invasion of privacy, because the garda vetting department simply give an all clear – they don’t reveal any personal information to the person making the enquiry unless they need to. But yeah – this is apparently Orwellian to you, yet I don’t hear you making any comments about the behaviour of the person who wrote to this scout leader, who had previously BEEN garda vetted, and come up clear, I don’t see you making any comment about how he was unfairly targeted simply because of his sexuality. I don’t see you mention how the treatment this man received was unacceptable and homophobic.. I just see you whining about the possibility of having your cis het white male privilege interfered with.