Comments on: Vote no to Lisbon because a job might go to a gay athletics coach

By: The Lisbon Treaty: Too long; didn’t read

The Lisbon Treaty: Too long; didn’t read — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:22:15 +0000

[...] No Side didn’t get any more loony than a particular Catholic group who campaigned on very conservative and close minded issues, including equality of men and women. [...]

By: Siobhan

Siobhan — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:46:15 +0000

Well this homosexual teacher say god forbid the Catholics would want to eliminate discrimination!

By: derek

derek — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:08:10 +0000

I’m voting no, but cant say I’m too mad on my company on this side of the fence! Still, thats politics. I’m pro-choice, anti-homophobia, and against the “liberalisation” as IBEC put it of services like health and education.

NO ON THE 12th!

By: Sabrina Dent

Sabrina Dent — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:25:11 +0000

My goodness, yes. God forbid we should be barred from discriminating against people on the basis of how God made them!

OK wait. Why does that not compute?

By: Dec

Dec — Fri, 30 May 2008 10:50:24 +0000

‘- The amended Treaties, for the first instance in an international juridical document, impose the parity between men and women in all areas’

I, for one, say ‘no’ to parity between men and women in all areas. Before you know it they’ll be wanting the vote…

By: Dan Sullivan

Dan Sullivan — Fri, 30 May 2008 10:08:35 +0000

As I recall the stock Catholic church answer on issues to do with sexual orientation are of the love the sinner, hate the sin type. So long as you’re non-practising everything is hunky dory. So the church should have no problem with discrimination legalisation when it comes to sexual orientation because that has nothing to do with what you do when in work. To the best of my knowledge being gay doesn’t preclude someone from being a priest.

By: Sean Reynolds

Sean Reynolds — Fri, 30 May 2008 09:44:07 +0000

The Catholic Church members – only saw a brief RTE news clip – looked mighty uneasy during their announcement … could it be that the world is vastly different to 1992, and we actually know what its clergy have been / are capable of doing?

In the list of dangers, did they forget to mention clerics who like ‘under eights’ after dinner?

[That's a ref to a gay community cartoon from the 1980's btw, not a personal jibe!]

Consentious Catholics – looks like an even older turn of phrase, like something out of the Carrigan Committee era (1930’s). James M Smith has a wonderful book out about the Magdalen women, and he uses the term ‘culture of containment’ to describe how people were kept in their place and everything was behind closed doors. Surely one issue with which the Church members should concern themselves (and wish to keep behind closed doors) is that new regulations about sexual rights will make the Church more open to legal challenges over child abuse… oh that’s what it’s about!

I thought about what might motivate them to use this language now in the “noughties”. Well, the Church members can express this opinion aloud as crumply Cowen’s crew has no intention of furthering gay rights on their watch. So that’s ok then.

Cue Darragh grinding teeth… grrrr!

By: tipster

tipster — Fri, 30 May 2008 08:59:13 +0000

I am also curious as to what the implications for provatising education would be.

By: Darragh

Darragh — Fri, 30 May 2008 08:50:08 +0000

Are you fukken kidding me? Seriously, this is the type of absolute crap they’re talking about?

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but say “No” to … the prohibition of any discrimination based on sexual orientation

*LIVID HERE*

I’m actually too angry to type coherently. I’ll be back. However I will say that this group *DOES NOT* represent the views of Irish Catholics or indeed the Roman Catholic Church’s views on acceptance, understanding, tolerance and love. Whatever about man-made doctrines, I doubt Jesus would have been promoting anything like this.

Well done for bringing this to our attention.