Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
 RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
Declined: Chapter 5: ?The Industrial Processes Appeals Tribunal? Wed Jan 22, 2025 19:00 | M. Zermansky
Chapter five of Declined is here ? a dystopian satire about the emergence of a social credit system in the UK, serialised in?the Daily Sceptic. This week: Ella ponders a lawsuit against the children's implants.
The post Declined: Chapter 5: “The Industrial Processes Appeals Tribunal” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Farm Tax Raid Puts Britain?s Food Security at Risk, Says Tesco Wed Jan 22, 2025 17:12 | Will Jones
Rachel Reeves's tax raid on farmers is putting Britain?s food security at risk and must be paused, Tesco has warned, as the backlash to the controversial policy that has brought farmers to the streets mounts.
The post Farm Tax Raid Puts Britain’s Food Security at Risk, Says Tesco appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Seventy-Five Years After Orwell, Fighting for Free Speech is as Crucial as Ever Wed Jan 22, 2025 15:00 | Will Jones
To mark the 75th anniversary of the death of George Orwell, Laura Perrins interviews Toby ? now Lord Young ? about the prospects for free speech in the age of Starmer and Trump.
The post Seventy-Five Years After Orwell, Fighting for Free Speech is as Crucial as Ever appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
There Has Been a Failure Here Wed Jan 22, 2025 13:01 | Dr David McGrogan
What we have seen in Starmer since July is a petty, inhumane, almost spiteful man who considers himself morally superior to the mass of humanity. This, says Dr David McGrogan, was confirmed in spades yesterday.
The post There Has Been a Failure Here appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Trump Threatened With Lawsuit Over Withdrawal from WHO Wed Jan 22, 2025 11:11 | Will Jones
Donald Trump has been threatened with a lawsuit over his day-one decision to withdraw?from the World Health Organisation (WHO) because he didn't get the approval of Congress.
The post Trump Threatened With Lawsuit Over Withdrawal from WHO appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Should we condemn or not the glorification of Nazism?, by Thierry Meyssan Wed Jan 22, 2025 14:05 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?116 Sat Jan 18, 2025 06:46 | en
After the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark, the Trump team prepares an operat... Sat Jan 18, 2025 06:37 | en
Trump and Musk, Canada, Panama and Greenland, an old story, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jan 14, 2025 07:03 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?114-115 Fri Jan 10, 2025 14:04 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Polish leader's anti-gay stance threatens EU voting rights
 national |
rights, freedoms and repression |
news report
 Saturday November 05, 2005 13:11 by Roger Eldridge - National Mens Council of Ireland familymen at eircom dot net 07196-67138
The recent outburst that penalties would be imposed on Poland by the EU if they did not protect the rights of homosexuals shows just how crazy the world has become. [Start quote] "Friso Roscam Abbing, the European commission's justice spokesman, warned the new president he must abide by article 6 of the Treaty of Nice, which says that all member states must protect minority rights and not impose the death penalty." [End quote]
The first thing that one must point out is that no such a person as a "gay' or "homosexual" or lesbian" exists in law. All that exists is people who may commit sexual acts with other people of the same sex.
They are not identifiable as a group - minority or otherwise.
Are people who collect stamps a minority group? Are people who enjoy watching wrestling on the TV a minority group?
None of these people - not stamp collectors, nor wrestling addicts nor people who engage in homosexual acts - merely by going about their interests - can be classified or identified in law as a group. They only possess 'group' characteristics whilst they engage in their interests.
As soon as they stop doing them they are no longer being a stamp collector or wrestling addict or homosexual so ACTIVITIES like these can never be used to legally define any group as one could stop doing them at any time.
This is especially important about activities which by their nature must take place out of the public view, like intimate sex between adults. How can it ever be proven that a person is actually a "homosexual" and not a "heterosexual" without being able to see the act being performed and this is a repugnant idea.
And as soon as these people who claimed they are "homosexual" stopped performing their sexual act who is to say they that don't - the next minute - perform a "heterosexual" act thus presumably barring them from being able to use the "homosexual" or "gay" tag that gives them special privileges.
What we have therefore is a group without definition. It would appear that the only condition in belonging to this group is that one CLAIMS membership.
This would be fine and dandy if it was stamp collectors and by claiming to be a stamp collector one could meet other stamp collectors and possibly exchange stamps. No harm there.
But some simpletons have actually decided without reference to rationality to assign special privileges to anyone who claims they belong to this "homosexual" group.
These same idiots then state that anyone claiming to belong to this fictitious group has rights over and above the rest of society!
Hence if I apply for job and don't get it I can't complain - BUT if I apply for a job and claim I am a homosexual the interviewers have to think twice about rejecting me even if my abilities aren't the best of the bunch.
Our police force is also supposed to allow sexual acts which would be offensive to public decency, if performed by a man and woman, to be performed as long as the people committing them claim membership of the fictitious "homosexual group".
Worse still we have in Canada - where they are so morally perverted they refuse to raise the age of consent for children having sex with adults to over 14 - yes fourteen - legislation which increases the sentence of an offender if the victim claims membership of this fictitious group.
Again in Canada there is legislation which which would criminalizes anyone - including me for writing this piece - who suggests that it is crazy to give special privileges to a group that can never even exist!
Extrapolating the ridiculous logic of the existence of this group we should all claim membership of it so we can all enjoy the benefits that out state will heap upon us. That is of course the reason for this nonsense. The state is tempting everyone with the promise of benefits of self-selection so that they can then claim the numbers are so high that we must give the members of this "group" the same rights as married couples.
We must never forget the reasons why the state acts in this way. It has a totalitarian nature and wants to act as everyone's nanny. Unfortunately for the state but fortunately for the Common Good the state can not enter the family home of a married couple. It can however legitimately enter the home of any other group of people including those who falsely believe the state is on their side and it can dictate to them what to do.
The bottom line is that what people get up to in the privacy of their own lives is up to them and their conscience before God - except if it impacts negatively on other people.
Then it becomes an issue for deciding whether the Common Good is in jeopardy. Our attitude to people - who engage in homosexual acts to the exclusion of heterosexual acts and by so doing deny themselves the chance of procreation - should be to seek to help them compassionately.
Designating a group without any legal definition or test of belonging to that group and giving the group special rights above the rest of society is such madness it can never be to the benefit of society. Doing it in such a way as to undermine marriage is definitely not in the Common Good.
Anyone who supports the madness is therefore acting contrary to the Common Good and must be told so by the people like the little boy who told the Emperor when he was acting like a fool.
Roger Eldridge,
Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland,
Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
Www.family-men.com
Tel: 00 353 (0) 71-9667138
Email: [email protected]
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (7 of 7)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7What of the rights of gay fathers?
There are many, you know?
just people who do christian things and talk about them. great. you've just argued yourself out of a lobby. Nice to see you marginalised.
There is no such thing as a "gay" father. A father only exists in law because he has acted as a heterosexual in the act of procreation. He was not homosexual then. He may have performed homosexual acts since but that does not make him in law any more a homosexual father than a heterosexual father.
In fact in law only a married man can be a father - because he is married to the mother of a child. This allows him, in fact compels him, to protect his children. If he hadn't married the mother he could not protect his children as he would have no claim in law to be the father of that child as no test exists which can prove 100% that he is the father, only a blood or DNA test which can prove he is NOT the father.
Therefore in law there is no group such as “unmarried fathers” and consequently they have no rights. They have to ask the mother or the state for some rights so can never properly protect his child from either. Isn’t it interesting that there is no such group as “homosexuals’ yet the state has given them (whoever they are?) rights superior than everyone else.
Similarly with our convictions and faith. It can not be proven that I am a Christian or a Muslim but I can declare I am a Christian. Quite rightly neither faith receives any superior rights to anyone else even if they are atheists.
The question remains why does the state encourage people to claim to be homosexual?
Roger Eldridge,
Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland,
Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
www.family-men.com
Tel: 00 353 (0) 71-9667138
email: [email protected]
Roger, these homosexual acts seem to occupy a large part of your thinking. It's almost as if you found them strangely compelling and just can't stop yourself thinking about them, writing about them and whatever else you might do while pondering their acts.
Leaving your strange obsession aside, I might as well point out that your idea that gay people get extra privileges is ridiculous. There is legislation which is supposed to prevent them being discriminated against, but you can hardly think that is a privilege. I mean, even twisted and bitter old bible bashing bigots have the right not to be discriminated against.
If you doubt me, why not put it to the test? Perform one of these acts and see how many privileges you get. I'm sure that would be the happiest outcome all around.
Your comments Mr Badman appear to always fall within the same category.
They amount to personal attacks and slurs and always avoid talking about the issues raised. It is not worth even attempting to respond to your specific taunts as they are so ridiculous.
My concerns are clearly for children as the presumption in law and in practice is that their welfare is to be found in the care of their married parents acting jointly.
Note parents and that is still, even to twisted minds, means their mother and father. And also note that this presumption refers to their married parents because marriage has been shown over millennia to provide children with the care and guidance and role models they need to develop healthily and give them the best outcomes.
it also ensures the stability of their childhood and of society at large. Married parents, even today, with all the pressures and encouragements for women to desert their marriages, still last on average about 12 years which is about 11 and three quarter years longer than most same-sex relationships, so any talk of allowing same-sex couples to adopt on this ground alone is tatntamount to child abuse.
Why don't you think of children and society for a change rather than always promote adult self-gratifications?
There is a part of me that wishes what you say could be true i.e. that being a member of a group of people who identify as gay is no more noteworthy than a group who identify as being stamp-collectors or wrestling addicts. Unfortunately there is a fundamental difference between being gay and being members of the other groups, namely, stamp collectors are rarely beaten up and killed because they're stamp collectors like, for instance, in the case of Matthew Shepherd in the US some years back. The reality is, as every gay person knows full well, the simple fact of being gay is sufficient cause in the minds of many to justify cruel and inhuman treatment. The reality is that homophobic prejudice still abounds.
If I may take a sentence to illustrate: You say about gay people "All that exists is people who may commit sexual acts with other people of the same sex." This suggests the existence of gay people can be reduced to the performance of particular "sexual acts". This nonsense is no truer of straight people than it is of gay people. Does a celibate heterosexual cease to be heterosexual because he or she doesn't engage in particular 'sexual acts'? Of course not. Likewise gay people cannot be reduced in such a way.
The second point that emerges is the use of the word 'commit'. It has a very specific legal connotation, which suggests a crime has been performed. So the sentence suggests that when gay people express their sexuality in a way that is entirely natural and normal for them then this is a crime. Any gay couple that has dared to hold hands walking down a public thoroughfare in Dublin will know that this prejudice is of far more than academic concern.
So the reality is gay people are a group for the purposes of discrimination legislation because the simple fact is that they are discriminated against. Roll on the time when it is no longer necessary but that time is far off yet judging by the underlying homophobia of your letter.
"Married parents, even today, with all the pressures and encouragements for women to desert their marriages, still last on average about 12 years which is about 11 and three quarter years longer than most same-sex relationships, so any talk of allowing same-sex couples to adopt on this ground alone is tatntamount to child abuse."
Roger i'm afraid this doesn't logically follow as it compares married relationships, where the partipants are generally very serious about each other to gay relationships of all levels of commitment. Most heterosexual relationships last for quite small amounts of time however marriages usually go on a while because the participants are likely to be committed to one another. I'm not explaining this very well so i hope my point is clear.
I could also point out that in denmark, where civil partnerships for gays have been introduced, there is actually a lower divorce than amongst the heteros. Hmm.
Also if it were found that the marriages of a certain racial group were more likely to break down than that of others would you propose to ban this racial group from adoption regardless of how committed individual couples were? Didn't think so?
Finally isn't it a little offensive to compare having divorced parents to child abuse?