We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A FIANNA FÁIL councillor has refused to comment after remarks he made last year, where he described lesbian couples having babies as “gross”, were published this morning.
A recording of Roscommon county councillor Paddy Kilduff making the remarks in February of last year has been published by The Irish Sun, which leads with the story on its front page today.
In comments regarding the same-sex marriage referendum, Kilduff is heard to say: ”Personally I won’t be voting for it and the reason I am not voting for it – no problem with gays and lesbians – but the problem I have is with the children.
“We have enough problems with children being adopted and they’re going back looking for their parents, they’re going to have some job when two men adopt a child.”
To laughter from the audience, Kilduff said:
They won’t know who’s who and when you have two women having babies and artificially inseminated… It’s gross, it’s gross. So I won’t be supporting it anyway, so you can take that back to Dublin.
Contacted by TheJournal.ie this morning, Kilduff repeatedly refused to comment on what he said nearly a year ago, insisting several times: “I won’t be making any comment whatsoever.”
Asked specifically if he still believed lesbians having babies is “gross”, Kilduff said: ”I am very, very sorry, I won’t be making any comment.”
Asked why he is not commenting, he said: “I just won’t be. That might change in time, but I’m not making any comment.”
Fianna Fáil said the councillor was speaking in a “personal capacity”.
Kilduff had prefaced his recorded remarks last February by saying he believed Fianna Fáil was cooperating too much with Fine Gael and Labour on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
He said that he had no problem with gay and lesbian couples living together, but said he had a problem with Fianna Fáil agreeing to same-sex marriage.
Roscommon-South Leitrim was the only constituency in the country that did not pass the referendum in May 2015, voting 51.42% to 48.58% against same-sex marriage.
Fianna Fáil was beset by problems during the campaign.
While the party leadership gave strong backing to a Yes vote there was considerable disquiet over the failure of some members to canvass for the referendum’s passage.
Senator Averil Power quit the party days after the referendum passed, saying Fianna Fáil’s campaign had been cowardly and cynical, and symbolised “everything that is wrong with the party”.
A Fianna Fáil spokesperson told TheJournal.ie this morning that Kilduff’s remarks are not new, but added:
Fianna Fáil supported the Marriage Referendum and we were the first party to pass a motion that was debated at the 2012 Ard Fheis. This person was speaking in a personal capacity.
The spokesperson added that Kilduff remains a member of the party.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
He is entitled to his views (even though I don’t agree with them), however he needs to have the courage of his convictions and grow a pair of balls and be prepared to defend his beliefs!
ha ha
Hahaha he may be paul but Tony is not a homophobe.
You either agree with test tube babies or your some sort of “phobe”
That’s wrong O’Duffy.
He didn’t mention IVF being gross in a general context. He specifically stated that a gay or lesbian couple having babies is gross.
The man is clearly a homophobe. Another dirty old man far too interested in other peoples sex lives.
The only thing I get from this article is a babe in arms with his face ,now that’s gross ,no surprise Hugh repeated it ,if this was China Hugh would be a communist
I was going ask what century this moron comes from, but that wouldn’t be fair on our stone age ancestors
@Jon. No his attitude would have been considered archaic, even then. The daily Telegraph 2011 reported : Archaeologists have unearthed the 5,000-year-old remains of what they believe may have been the world’s oldest known gay caveman. The male body – said to date back to between 2900-2500BC – was discovered buried in a way normally reserved only for women of the Corded Ware culture in the Copper Age. He’s more of a Dinasaur.
I liked the dinosaurs though!
Yeah I’d say he’s into Barney aswell !
ff are stuck in the stone age not fit for government.
Does he not know that free speech is now considered as racist.
Get a clue buddy.
Johneary – and race comes into this where exactly?
Don’t worry – 38% of the electorate were also intimidated. No wonder he doesn’t want to speak.
Free speech isn’t the right to speech without criticism, it just means the state can’t punish you for what you say, if you say something and other people think that what you say is bigoted then free speech allows them to say so. Its a two way street.
Well said Warai Aoi.
Isn’t it funny all the conservatives are for freedom of speech when it comes to something they agree with (as above), but not for those of us who are exercising our right to freedom of speech in criticising his archaic views.
Ask the PC brigade Paul.
I’m just as confused as you.
lol @ johneary.
You were the ONLY one to bring ‘racist’ into this thread. Why?
@Chris. Because he doesn’t understand the term ??
I’m as confused as you are on this issue as well Chris
and Paul hasn’t came back to me yet.
You could try asking some of the pro yes campaign Journal commenters.
John – liking your own comment is the equivalent of patting yourself on the back.
I understand both terms alright P-anti.
However I cannot understand why they are being juxtaposed to serve populist agendas.
Even by our own president.
Whatever Paul.
Take care of yourself.
@Johnneary. Like Michael sands stated earlier, people will use language and terminology to ascertain and cement their opions. We all do it lad, even playing field there.
This is not news! This is a personal opinion and regardless of who it offends, and whether you agree or not, he is entitled to his opinion.
The personal opinion of an elected representative expressed in public can certainly be reported as news.
What we don’t have is the context of where he made the comments.
If it was someone publicly trying to push their beliefs, then it’s fair enough to be asked to defend them. That doesn’t just apply to someone with his views, but everyone from Irish Water protestors to religious proslytisers.
Someone who has private views is perfectly entitled to them.
Also, as he’s a public representative, the public are entitled to show an interest in those views and ask him for clarification or a defence of them.
Why do it a year later though May? It seems a bit unusual to me.
Because Hugh isn’t a real journalist and its election season.
Possibly because they didn’t have the tape till now? You can’t report what you don’t know?
This borders on stalking.
How about doorstepping a few of 1000′s of gang rapist terrorising our cities?
Or some of the TD’s who are inviting them to town near you?
“1000’s of gang rapist terrorising our cities”?
Sure you can’t go outside the door in Kilkenny* without being gangraped.
*What, it is a city. IT IS!
No surprise really, the political establishment in this country appear to be from another era. Filled with old men who are completely out of touch.
Agreed, we need a new fresh party like Renua to take us forward, or in the case of Renua back to the stone age that is. Lucinda actually spoke out against legalising gay marriage but then realised that was an unpopular opinion so she changed her mind, a play straight out of her Enda’s book.
Why no article reminding us all of Lucinda Creighton’s views on same sex marriage, there were calls for her to be kicked out of FG long before she jumped but of course her sense of what is popular caused a dramatic change of heart on the topic before the vote.
This is a strange article.. Digging up old trash from a referendum that’s done and dusted.. Agenda?
Which part of “published by The Irish Sun, which leads with the story on its front page today” did you not comprehend? Unless you’re suggesting Hugh is pulling the strings over there as well?
Anyone that republishes anything from the Sun should be ashamed to call himself a journalist.
Dave, the journal has a lot of things, but no journalists
Comments he made last year ? Albeit the comments were ridiculous why are they being dug up now. Oops silly me methinks there’s an election coming up. By the by journal can you find out from you FG masters when the Moriarty report issue is going to be acted on as this is also an old but hidden issue.
The Sun must be hard up for a front page story
God hugh your bias is palpable.
It was the sun that published it first.
It is Hugh that regorgitate it and therefor he is endorsing it’s content.
Where’s the news here Hugh. Is it just as always, you shooting at all opposition to your beloved FG. The man has his views, so what.
Ask him to do a story on the Murder of Larry White here in Cork in the 1970s. They wont because it affects the Government
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005451/Bernard-Lynch-serves-assistant-junior-minister-wife-served-year-bars.html
Such a brave man. Really sticking to his comments by not commenting afterwards. Go and hide quick and we’ll see ya election time ya coward.
he made the comments 8 months ago ya muppett
What difference does that make ya clown?
“It’s gross”. Compelling argument.
As compelling as any other against the referendum.
But none of them had anything against the gays, you know.
It was just about the children. Which is fine, like. You can treat people as second class citizens “for the good of the children” and it doesn’t make you an thick ignorant bigot.
Let’s all hope the horrible **** loses his seat. Ireland doesn’t need morons like this in the Dáíl.
I feel sympathy for the 49% of Roscommon people who have to live next to the rest of them
Well, I wouldn’t call it gross.
Unnatural would the more fitting term really.
Would they be more or less natural than sending a message through satellites orbiting Earth?
Where in creationist scripture does it state homosexuality is unnatural Oran. I’m not gay myself but im very jnterested in learning more about your belief system.
“im very jnterested in learning more about your belief system.”
Best of luck with that :-)
@Oran. Well as usual, you’re not much help. You’d rather preach it than teach it. Fair enough.
I don’t think my teaching skills have reached that level of competency yet.
@Oran. I’ll allow for that. I’m genuinely interested in creationism, it’s ideology and customs, yeah i coukd read up on ir, but you don’t meet many believers. I like insight.
Seek and you shall find.
I just don’t get creationists. If you can’t grasp the concept of an Ape like creature evolving into a man, how come you believe a rib was turned into a woman. Help me understand your philosophy.
If you can’t grasp the meaning of symbolism then I’m afraid you’re better off away from religion.
You’ll only end up confused.
@Oran. Strong feelings, anecdotal accounts, third person testimonies, emotional reactions, scripture and symbolism, are not evidence of a supernatural. I know that much about it. Which parts are symbolism and which parts are the word of God ? Is it that you can pick the ones that you like or are too unbelievable to explain logically, and the rest are true ? Its very confusing, you’re right.
It is called freedom of speech. This applies to speech even if you do not agree. End of story.
Yes freedom of speech allows us to criticise a public official for his homophobic views.
Why is one automatically deemed homophobic when one believes a child is better brought up by a man and a woman?
It’s a cheap shot to make accusations of homophobia.
@Tom Burke,
If you can provide concrete evidence that children raised by same sex couples are in any way worse off than children raised by opposite sex couples, then please feel free to present it. Otherwise be prepared to have your views and opinions questioned and asked to back them up.
That’s the concept of free speech, you can express any opinion or belief that you like, but others have the right to question said opinion or beliefs.
Who is saying he is not entitled to his opinion?
Close minded old politicians are gross.
It’s the exact same process as for any other woman probably just more dungarees involved that’s all.
Well I bet thousands of gay couples will prove councillor Paddy Kilduff and Fianna fail wrong. Its not that long ago that killing gays or torturing those who are different was expectable to Fianna fail and the community at large. Murders are still at large and investigations never carried out into crimes against gay people. Hopefully the fear mongering will stop someday and we can move forward without hatred of individuals religion, colour, creed or gender but if those in positions of responsibility continue to belittle or victimise minorities for political gain then we are moving backward to the days of a Fianna fail majority government.
His issue was with the welfare of children and babies.
His issue is he’s a bigot and will use the welfare of children and babies as an excuse to victimise minorities for political gain.
What exactly makes him a bigot in your view leartius?
@Johnneary. What would you label him as ?
Johneary,
How exactly is the welfare of children and babies affected by a gay couple raising a child?
The guy is entitled to express his opinion, to be honest I am glad he did because he probably won’t be asked to leave FF which shows how backward that party really is. We have politicians trying to run elections expressing views that were considered conservative in the 90s. Do they not understand that Irish people have moved on quite a bit. We aren’t kids believing everything that teacher says anymore?
Why am I not surprised he is from Roscommon! Feel sorry for the forward looking people in the county having to put up with Neanderthals like him.
Another like senator Jim Walsh and yet droves will vote FF next month
Small mined politians with face like his only a mother could love…. I pray all his children are born gay.
Shock, horror – somebody who doesn’t stand on the LGBT platform uses his right to express an opinion!!!
It appears that the way society is going is that unless one is pro gay marriage, pro gay adoption and pro abortion, you may be considered a bigot.
It appears that ‘pro choice’ doesn’t extend to having freedom to choose what you believe in.
You’re free to believe what you want. You’re even free to say it. But others are also free to believe differently, and they too are allowed to say it. They’re even allowed to criticise what you or anyone else has said the way you are free to criticise what they say.
Isn’t freedom of speech wonderful?
@Tom. What has pro choice to do with this article ? Also, of course you have freedom to chose, once that choice is not illegal. You are entitled to your views as much as I am entitled to criticise and question them. The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas, even if they are deeply held beliefs, is a fundamental freedom of society. I respect your right to your beliefs and opinions, but I’m not obliged to respect them and I dont have to. Neither do you have to respect mine. Anyway Tom, if you’re so sure of your beliefs and opinions, why would let it bother you when others doubt them ?
Kilduff is Cathaoirleach/Chairman of Roscommon County Council. I’m surprised that thejournal didn’t mention this.
Nothing but a statue licking s(umbag
Sad bitter old man
Resign
His comments show the dishonesty of the no campaign and how they managed to make it seem like the referendum had something to do with a gay couples ability to raise children. In reality the referendum had no bearing on a gay couples ability to raise children whether through ivf or adoption, which was already determined by the child and family relationships bill. It really was just about civil marriage. He doesn’t seem to have known that.
Demise
You are baffling me with your comprehension of the English language. Try substituting the word ‘ability’ with ‘right’.
I voted no because I don’t like to see every combination of parenting as normal. 2 mums, 2 dads, 2 transgender. Whatever floats your boat is normal parenting??
Not in my view.
As long as the child is loved have any old combination?
That’s strange.
Well you seem to have grasped what I meant anyway Tom. Regardless of your views on gay parenting the fact still remains that the referendum had no impact on a gay couples ability(or right if it makes you feel better) to raise children. So using gay parenting as a reason to vote no made little sense as a no vote had no impact in that regard. If anything a no vote majority was going to negatively impact on the children it would affect, specifically gay youth and children raised by gay parents, as it would have denied their families equal protection under the law and would have sent a message to gay youths that they should not be allowed to avail of civil marriage with their significant other, that they are unworthy of marriage. No other children were going to be impacted by the referendum.
@Tom. I hate that I have to know the bible to debate a Christian, who obviously doesn’t know their bible. Let’s start with man + woman + concubine : Abraham had 2 concubines, Solomon had 300. Then there’s polygany : Jacob had 2 wives, Solomon 700, David had many, then there’s man + brothers widow : levirate marraige ( Genesis 38 : 6-10 ), then there’s a rapist and his victim, Deuteronomy 22 :28 – 29, then there’s male soldier and prisoner of war, Deuteronomy 21:11-14, then there’s male slave and female slave, Exodus 21-4 and finally, man + woman, Genesis 2:24, the nuclear family you hold so dear, where the woman is the man’s property, marriages mostly arranged ans not based on love, one where if the wife is not a virgins, she can be stoned to death. Tom, you can’t cherry pick from the bible. If you believe the verses you like, and discard the ones you don’t, it’s not the bible you believe, it’s yourself. Gay couples have been raising happy healthy well adjusted kids for years now and your bible promotes all sorts of shinanagins! !
Just 1 question P-anti.
Who mentioned the bible?
Because I certainly didn’t.
You seem to have no other life other than to be on here posting every 20 mins on anything that gives you an opportunity to rant against any form of religion.
Relax man. You are hearing things that haven’t been said.
So where did I cherry pick from the bible? Come to think of it, where did I even mention the bible?
I just said I think a child is best brought p by a man and a woman, all things being equal.
And where would your no vote have impacted on a gay couples right to raise children Tom? Seeing as it would negatively impact on gay youths and children raised by gay parents, where would your no vote have had any positive impact on children?
You see this is the typical blame game guilt trip of the yes side.
By voting yes it is acknowledging that it’s ok for gay couples to adopt children.
I’m not saying that they are not gay parents doing a great job any more than I’m saying some heterosexual couples do a bad job. I’m saying on balance a child should have a mum and a dad and in an ideal world they would be the biological parents. Am I such a bigoted caveman for suggesting that?
I don’t think so.
@Tom. Terrible retort tom, either your views are coming from a religious stance, or a moral stance, the later sugests you are indeed a homophobe. Now Tom you won’t bluff me, I know where you’re coming from. Also, I’ve explained free speech to you, you can count my posts and call them rants, but your ideology is fair game for questions and critism. I’ve shown you how the bible supports all types of marriages and you have yet to post any emperical prove that gay couples can not rare their kids to the same standard as hetrosexuals. So instead of deflecting, please support your arguements.
No its not acknowledging anything of the sort. The referendum was specifically about civil marriage. Your opinion on gay parenting had nothing to do with the referendum. The child and family relationships bill had already been passed into law and it ensured a gay couple/individual are legally on par with a heterosexual couple / individual in terms of adoption. The referendum was never about gay parenting. Can you not think of a way in which a majority no would have benefited children Tom? I can’t either. I can however think of more than one benefit of the majority yes result to gay youth and children raised by gay parents. Thankfully the yes vote prevailed on the day. A no vote majority would have negatively affected children raised by gay parents and gay youth. And it seems you can’t think of one benefit to these children of your no vote. Yet most no voters said they were doing it for children! Its not a blame game at all. There was nothing in the wording of the referendum question relating it to gay parenting in any way. Using it as a reason to vote no means you were not voting on the issue at hand but using your views on gay parenting as a protest vote.
And really Tom the people who voted no because they disagreed with gay parenting were not as they tried to claim doing it for children’s welfare. They were doing it despite the negative impact it would have on these children. They didn’t care enough about gay children and children of gay parents to vote yes for them to ensure they have the same protections and rights as everyone else. They didn’t care enough to do the best thing for these children. They instead used their vote to say I don’t agree with gay people marrying. That they were trying to say I don’t agree with gay parenting makes no difference as that was not the question at hand. Truth is they couldn’t see past their own discomfort with gay parenting to do the right thing by these children.
No sorry. That’s turning the blame here.
I have an issue with gay parenting. Full stop. I don’t have an issue with gay people. I think every child should have a mother and a father, where possible.
To say that because I won’t go the full 9 yards and vote for gay marriage is now putting the blame on me, is disengenius.
Don’t flatter yourself in thinking I would waste my time trying to bluff you. If this is my last post you will still be here in 20 mins arguing with somebody else. I don’t really give a rats xxxx what you think. I think every child should have a mum and a dad. Forgive me for going with the normality of nature. I’m not into 3 parent families because for every hay couple who have a baby there is a at least 1 parent outside that family bond. Call me homophobic? Up to you. No matter what I say that’s what you are going to say anyway. I don’t rate your opinion very highly anyway.
Go and watch telly or walk the dog. Don’t waste evening after evening of your life posting on the Journal.
That’s just sad.
That’s for P-anti matter.
But tom you can’t seem to give me an example of where your no vote could in any way have impacted on gay parenting?Or how a no majority would have in any way benefited children? The referendum was not about parenting at all. It was about civil marriage so how could voting no have had any impact on gay parenting? Gay parenting was not the issue at hand in the referendum. A no majority would have negatively impacted gay parents , gay children and children of gay parents. Where would it have benefited anyone?
Tom we are all responsible for our own votes. If you see something wrong with the consequences voting no would have had if the referendum had not passed then perhaps you shouldn’t have voted no. If you have no problem with gay people marrying then again why did you vote no. If you can’t think of one single benefit from a majority no then why vote no. There were benefits from a yes vote for gay youth and children of gay parents as well as gay people across the board. There were negative effects for those same people from a no vote. It seems you wanted to vote no regardless of these effects yet you do not want to take any responsibility for the impact your vote aspired to inflict on these people. If you feel blamed perhaps its because a no vote majority would have had a significant impact on these people. You know as well as I do that the question in the referendum had nothing to do with parenting and would not have impacted on gay peoples right to raise children. So you must know that using that reason to vote no was in essence not answering the question put to you. How can you claim to be thinking of children when you can’t list even one benefit to children of a no vote. And plenty would have been disadvantaged with that no vote had it prevailed on the day.
Demise if gay parents had any real regard for children they wouldn’t adopt them in the first place, married or not. It is their own selfish needs being put before the needs of their children.
And where is your evidence for that Tony? Children of gay parents fare just as well as children of heterosexual people Tony. If anything a gay couple are never going to have an unplanned pregnancy before they are ready to raise children both financially and emotionally. Straight couples often have unplanned pregnancies in less than ideal circumstances. Surely you can acknowledge that child welfare experts who know more than you or I about the topic are better placed to know whether or not gay couples are able to be good parents and meet their child’s needs.
Evidence that a child should have a mother and father ? …lol.
Every child does have a mother and father Tony that’s simply biology. That doesn’t mean every child needs to be raised by both their biological mother and father , evidenced by children who are raised just as well in single parent homes, homes with step parents, adoptive parents, etc.
Kids are raised by single parents, step parents etc. for a variety of reasons, this however will never make purposely denying a child either a mother or father by a gay couple acceptable. You cannot equate gay parenting with any other type of family unit.
If a child is going through the adoption system it means its not possible for them to be raised by their biological parents. In that instance the best fit for the child should be identified. It should not matter the sexuality of the adoptive parent/s all that should matter is the quality of parenting they can give the child. Thankfully that’s how it is.
And thankfully there are lots of good straight couples out there looking to adopt.
Thankfully they won’t be chosen over a gay couple because of their sexuality. Whichever couple or person that is chosen will be chosen based on the best fit for the child
And all other things being equal that will be the normal couple.
All the couples will be normal tony they wouldn’t pass the rigorous process to be deemed eligible to adopt if they werent
And you’re suggesting homosexual couples are not normal Tony? Can you explain your reasoning for that?
Couples looking to adopt kids are normally straight not 2 men or 2 women….I’m surprised that needs explaining.
So you mean normal as in usual. Not normal versus abnormal? Thanks for clearing that up.
And all other things are never equal Tony no couple is the same. The point is sexuality is not a deciding factor. There are many other qualities more important with regards raising children. For example financial stability, support network, history, personality, possibility of family connection, emotional intelligence. Best fit for the child does not come down to sexuality nor should sexuality be a deciding factor. All the evidence points to gay parents being just as capable and providing just as well as heterosexual parents. Yet you seem incapable of looking past some prejudice to accept that.
Why is it that some people have become so disillusioned in the past few years that they think that having 2 parents of the same sex is natural/normal/acceptable??
It’s impossible for 2 people of the same sex to procreate together.
Is this some kind of plot to wipe out the human race??
Heterosexual reproduction/parenting/union has served humankind since the beginning of humankind,
why should it be meddled with just to appease some selfish disillusioned pc types?
2 gay parents aren’t capable of being a mother and father and never will be. There’s no pejudice in knowing what’s best for a child, it’s nothing to do with gay people actually.
The eminent Dr Francis M Pottenger a physician carried out a study on cats in the early 1900′s.
He studied 900 cats over a period of 10 years.
In identical environments he fed some of the cats their natural diet and fed some of the cats a processed diet.
The cats who were fed their natural diet reproduced normally, healthily and consistently in health, alertness, size and sexual inclination towards the opposite sex ad infinitum.These cats were calm, robust and kind to one and other and had virtually no miscarriages.
The cats who were fed the processed diet could no longer reproduce after the 4th generation and became extinct.
In their last 4 generations these cats, became sicker and sicker, many of them developing human degenerative diseases (arthritis, teeth loss and deformities and jaw deformities, cancer, poor eyesight obesity, malnutrition and poor hearing etc)
they miscarried regularly, attacked and killed each other regularly including their own offspring, the lost their inherent need to reproduce and regularly tried to mate with cats of the same sex, all of the offspring were of irregular shapes and sizes.
The food that was fed to the processed food group was identical to food that was fed to the natural food group. The only type of processing used on the processed food was cooking.
His finding are documented in his book Pottenger’s cats.
http://www.amazon.com/Pottengers-Cats-Francis-Marion-Pottenger/dp/0916764060/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452556963&sr=8-1&keywords=pottengers+cats
He also did studies with humans, which he also published in the book.
Amen Tony.
So John are you against ivf for heterosexual couples who cannot naturally procreate?
Johnneary, while you were saying that prayer know that 114 children died from starvation. But keep praying kido. Tony, what has the procreation abilities of the parents got to do with the parenting of an adapted child. Also, there are orphan children that would appreciate a loving safe home who won’t give two füçks wheter their parents are SS.
Tony we learn from many places not just our parents. Children raised in single parent families debunk your argument that a child needs both mother and father to be raised properly. Loving, capable and stable parents are what’s needed regardless of gender.
Again you are comparing single parents to gay parents…there’s no comparison, they are totally different types of family. It doesn’t matter if a gay couple are loving or not they are not a loving mother and father which will always be the ideal parents for a child. No child would ever choose gay parents, it is only the selfish fantasies of the parents that are being fulfilled.
It’s not procreation that is the issue Panti, why would you give an orphan child to a gay couple when there are plenty of loving straight couples looking to adopt ?
Why wouldn’t you Tony, there is nothing wrong with the parenting skills of gay couples. Their children fare just as well. I know from past experience that you would sooner see a child taken from a gay aunt or uncle and given to strangers than allow them to still have family connections to grandparents and maybe even parents by living with the gay aunt or uncle. That shows that your issue is not to do with depriving a child of their mam or dad, as you would willingly deprive them of all family rather then let them be raised by a gay aunt or uncle. That shows where your real issue lies.
@Tomy. Its simply this. When decisions are being made as to the suitability of parents in adapting a child, thankfully, their sexual orientation doesn’t come into it. Not should it. What parents get up to in the bedroom, does not impact on their parenting abilities, whether you’re gay, or like to dress up as the gimp, or are straight.
Children come from sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, 2 parents of the opposite sex.
Why on earth would a parent even consider giving away it’s child to 2 people of the same sex?
When it comes to IVF, I’m afraid I’ll have to take the side of our planet and nature.
Human IVF is approx. 37 years old (less than half of an Irish person’s life expectancy).
Who knows what the long term consequences will be.
Particularly with the GMO Frankenscientists that are involved.
Super bugs or immune system resistant diseases that wipe out vast swathes/all of the human race?
Show us the data that proves to us that it will not be so?
Well Turkey basters filled with semen are kind of gross.
Good man Paddy!!!
Sad that homopohbia is still alive in the Alabama of Ireland
A child needing a father and mother is not homophobic, it has nothing to do with gay people at all.
@Tony. You’re taking a hard stance tonight, but I know !!!!
Panti, the way I see it anyone that thinks a child is better off with a mam and Dad where possible is immediately labeled as homophobic. What has it got to do with gay people if I think a child needs a mam and Dad?
@Tony. I’ve publicly stated I don’t think you are a homophobe, sexual orientation does not effect parenting abilities.
Micheal Martin is making this face right now:
Not one bit surprising.
Averil Power quit Fianna Fail because she wasn’t getting a solo run in Dublin Bay North
Lesbians cannot give birth to a child. It doesn’t work that way. Neither can homosexual men give birth to a child. Commonsense.!
I’m not surprised given his constituency and age. The remaining FF voters are old, rural and have socially conservative views.
have your say