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.
“THERE’LL BE NO harvesting in this field at all,” if the rain doesn’t come soon says north Dublin farmer Colm Leonard.
The current heatwave has caused his broccoli crop to stop growing at a time when he and his workers should be harvesting. Instead they are waiting for rain, using some irrigation methods and hoping it will save the whole field from being wiped out.
“It’s got to the stage now where we are growing the crop from start to finish on irrigation,” Leonard says. “And it’s just impossible really.”
It’s a sentiment shared by other farmers across the country.
Irish Farmers’ Association President Joe Healy has said the current dry weather is causing difficulties for farmers who reply on rainfall for grass and crop growth.
The IFA has said this period will impact on yields and farmers income with Healy stating that:
Crop losses look inevitable with growers facing a situation where winter crops in the ground are stressed, and spring crops planted about eight weeks ago have not had any rain since.”
He urged factories and retailers to act responsibly at this difficult time and not put undue downward pressure on prices, something that Leonard only knows too well.
“It probably cost €50,000 to put this crop in the ground,” he says. “There should be €90,000 to €100,000 worth of broccoli here. And we probably won’t see any of it.”
If it rains in the next two weeks there’s a chance the fields could be saved, but until then he and his workers will be up at all hours of the day chasing water from irrigation channels so some water can make it onto the crops.
Recovered or not Leonard believes that “vegetables are going to be very scarce this year.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Couldn’t care less if my TD was gay, straight, black, white, man, woman, married, single,catholic, Muslim,etc….as long as they do a good job and represent their constituents well. Unfortunately, that’s something the majority of TDs in this country are incapable of.
I wish more TDs would come out as incompetent.
Don’t care whose gay or not but on a local John’s been very good for our area. Very hard working and hopefully he’ll get in next time too.
He’s right, it shouldn’t need to be discussed, it should be “as normal as breathing oxygen” as he put it.
Once this referendum goes through, it will be.
Pity he wouldn’t speak out about scam bridge or medical cards or evictions on coldest day of year. pity he didn’t notice Joan burton walking through a food bank in Tallaght before milking a few protestors shouting at her. pity he didn’t notice Alan Kelly’s €100 conservation grant is a once off and conserves nothing. Me me me another self obsessed labour head. No one cares if your gay or not it’s your lack of humanity the party whip is your problem
My point, only better. Thanks
His standing up for gay rights has no necessary connection to his political view. Gay people are like everyone else, there is no set political view that they all share, much like straight men don’t all support one party.
Also in fairness to Labour, they have always been very progressive on gay rights. You may not like their performance as junior party in government (neither do I) but I think it’s disengenous to fail to recognise their role at the forefront of gay equality. The Refferendum wouldn’t be happening without them.
I agree.
its the usual deflection away from matters that affect all the people of Eire.
As a gay man he should understand what it’s like to have to endure inequality and unfairness in certain quarters of society, which makes it even more mind boggling why he stands on the side unfairness and inequality with this government that he props up.
???????
Because all gay men should have the same politics Irish Stephen?
That’s a pretty descriminatory view of the world.
You too Paddy are very articulate. It’s a pity that someone as connected to the catholic church as you are didn’t use his gift when children, taken from their mothers, were being sold off to America, used in Ireland as slave labour, if they weren’t pretty enough for that, and otherwise abused. Oh, let me guess. You didn’t know. And shur wasn’t it only a few bad apples. The family legislation that normalises adoptions for gay couples is going ahead without a referendum. Just to let you know. The sacrement of matrimony is for heterosexual couples and fits in perfectly with the Church’s idea of sex only being for procreation. Marriage under the constitution enacts state protection of a couple and, since we live in a political system where state is separated from church, the law should not care how religions see it, but fairly afford the same protection to gay and lesbian couples also. Our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, teachers, builders, rubbishmen….our citizens. I do not respect your view that some people should be considered less under the Law. The reasoning you offer is homophobic. Children robbed of their birthright!!! Stolen from their mothers!!!! It’s a rhetoric not disimilar to the fanatical and ill-informed christian rumblings that made the rounds before various pogroms in the past. I am, however, thankful for people like you. So keep spewing your highly articulate venom. You help our cause.
Well said, Ian
Thats,bollox
Ian Phillip your arguement is rubbish, there is your secular mind thinking like your way is,the only way, what about the great secular inventions of your vision of the future, nuclear bombs, ballistics that can wipe out towns in minutes, cocane, heroine. All came from secular athiestic thinking, wouldnt you agree.
No, wrong. All came from so called religious people.
I could care less about his sexuality he’s right it shouldn’t even be up for discussion in 2014/2015. The way his party of choice of choice have walked away from their core values and every promise they made in order to get elected I find abhorrent
Do you mean you ‘couldn’t ‘ care less?
@paddy. I know couples who are married and can’t have children… should they be allowed remain married! Come out of the dark ages…. Equality is what’s important here…
Sure nobody asked him to talk about it so why bother? Isn’t he making something of it by mentioning it at all. Straight TDs don’t announce their sexuality. I’m sure there are more important issues he could concern himself with?
Perhaps John, who is very articulate, might use his gifts to protect the rights of children to their mother and fathers, and the right of society to promote relationships which perpetuate its own future existence. He might prevent inocolous legislation that perpetuates intolerance towards marriage, cake shops, flower shops, teachers, religious ministers, owners of meeting rooms, etc., around the world. He might even acknowledge the freedom he enjoys , like all of us in this society, to already engage in any relationship he may wish to pursue; without having to further destroy the institution of marriage, which exclusively binds a husband to his wife and both to their children.
Marriage is about mothers, fathers and children; it is not about me, me, and me.
@paddy, marriage is not just about mothers and fathers and children. My aunt decided before she married that herself and her husband didn’t want any children. You continue to come on here and spew your drivel,
@ Brian Madden
Fortunately Brian, it’s the people of Ireland who will decide what marriage is to them.
As for your Aunt, I wonder does she appreciates you, supposedly, quoting her?
@ Paddy. Yes marriage is certainly not about you, you, you. Gay people will continue to have, adopt and rear children regardless of the outcome of the referendum. However, if it’s not passed, children with same sex parents will continue to be denied the benefits of having married parents. If your truly concerned about children – and not about your own idealised view of what a family looks like – you should favour all parents being allowed to marry.
*you’re
@paddy, yes the Irish people will decide and will hopefully vote for equality. As for my aunt, she made it very clear she didn’t want kids. She is a very outspoken lady and would have no trouble confronting you on your backward views. She had a loving long relationship with her partner.
Paddy – I think you’re a bit confused. Marriage equality will have no effect whatsoever on your marriage. You simply aren’t being rational if you think that things will suddenly change with a vote for equality. All that will change is that a small percentage of society will now be treated equally. Your hysterical “Won’t somebody think of the children” is just baseless and a rather transparent cover up of what smells a lot like bigotry.
@ Séamus White
Yes Séamus, I’m sure gay persons will continue to acquire children, just like many single heterosexual persons do. But the state is in the business of promoting family environments where a mother and father take care of their own offspring. It’s called marriage, and its cheaper for the state, and has a better oucome for children.
As for that newest of substitutions, “parent”, as opposed to mother or father; how innocuous are we willing to make Irish society.
@ Brian Madden
Language is indeed a great thing. I’m sure it’s ok to refer to your aunts “partner”, as her husband. They were after all married, according to your previous comment. First change the language, then find a hook, in this case “equality”, then lead out the pie piper, John or John, and the country well dance along to the media’s tune, en route to its own destruction.
@ Martin Byrne
You are partly right Martin, redefining marriage won’t change my own relationship, but it will change marriage for everyone, forever.
It will become “intolerant” to associate marriage and children, marriage and husband/wife, marriage and procreation, marriage and gender balance etc.
Still not seeing it, Paddy. You don’t have any actual argument here, unless I’m missing something?
So Paddy, in your view should people who are infertile be allowed marry?
Calm down Paddy, it’s only a four year commitment after all.
@ Martin Byrne
It’s really quite simple Martin, marriage is that institution which binds a husband to his wife, and both to any children they may have.
The proposed redefinition of marriage, makes “marriage” about adult relationships, exclusively. Mentioning anything else is intolerant bigotry from a homophobe. I notice in your last comment I’ve been downgraded from “bigot”, to “smells a lot like bigotry”. I constantly make unchallenged points explaining marriage, it seem your side of this debate are finally learning you have to make points, rather than just calling people names.
@ Teresa Kelly
Any male/female, unrelated, above age limit, not already married, should be free to marry a member of the opposite sex. As a female, it amazes me that you would try to remove gender balance from the one institute where gender balance has been maintained for millennia. That’s modern feminism for you!
@paddy , it will become intolerant to associate marriage and children ? Intolerant ? Really Paddy ? Really ? Allowing two adults who are in love to marry is suddenly going to wreck your idealistic perfect heterosexual world is it ,it’s going make your world end ? It’s going to have a huge impact on your perfect world of heterosexual marriages , Jesus – you won’t know what to complain about if -as I suspect -it ends up making no bleedin difference to straight people at all.
@ Ron North
For a man depicted by a flash of lightening to advise me to “cool down”, is a worrying sign.
Indeed four years; I believe you can now acquire a temporary marriage licence for any specified length of time in California. This referendum will decide whether we defend marriage, or continue with an ever more ridiculous sham.
Seamus. If gay people were genuinely concerned about children they wouldn’t adopt them. To purposely deny a child a mother or father is wrong and can never be justified. You seem to believe that it will be ok as long as gay parents are married, it won’t be. Most people couldn’t care less if gay couples want to marry, the adoption of children by them is different.
@ Paddy. You believe marriage is a better outcome for children but you want to deny children with same sex parents that better outcome. Your position is anti-children.
Still pretending paddy? Good man.
It certainly is quite simple Paddy. You’re desperate to create a point where there is none. It’s more interesting to consider your motivation. Your point is so silly that the only people who are as eh… devout … as you will kid themselves believe it. But why do you actually care about something that will make no difference to you and almost none to society? Isn’t that a fascinating thing to ponder?
Paddy has been explained that a lack of marriage equality will legally isolate and damage children, not protect them, but he refuses to consider this. When I put the point to him many times, he side-stepped it and steered the conversation elsewhere. It is an inconvenience as all Paddy is interested in, is having his own legal and social situation considered the holy grail, so to speak. He wishes to be top of the pile and look down on all others.
What is truelly abhorrent though, is that a man who is a member of Catholic Comment, refuses to comment on anything but abortion and marriage equality. He has nothing to say about the abuses, rapes, murders that the organisation he holds so dearly has committed. No remorse. Not even an acknowledgement.
His bias is clear for all to see. Watch now how he will address me, ignoring the real points I have made, side-stepping the reality I am pointing out to him and going off on a tangent about ‘protecting children’ despite the fact that he is trying to do just the opposite. Over to you Paddy….
Paddy is an old gay man who has been brainwashed his whole life that he is going to hell. You won’t change his opinion now. He thinks he has to much to lose.
@Tony You’re making my point for me. The referendum on marriage equality is just that – a referendum on whether or not gay people can marry each other. If you think it’s a bad idea for gay people to have or adopt children, you’ll need to lobby your politicians to introduce laws to stop that – though I can’t see how that would work in practice. If you don’t care whether or not gay people can marry each other then perhaps you might consider voting Yes next year as it will have a positive impact on many people and their children.
@ Séamus White
Séamus it is not I, but the child’s mother and father who deny the children of gay couples their rights. Gay persons, who bring children into such situations, are responsible for their decision to deny the child a mother or a father. Their bad decisions are not a reason for us to redefine marriage.
@paddy, your arguments are becoming more desperate by the month.your views are thankfully not representative of the wider population.
@ Paddy. Blaming other people for the fact that you oppose some children benefiting from having married parents is disingenuous.
Incidentally, it would be useful for the general debate to know what, specifically, you think the impact of allowing gay people to marry each other would be on society.
Do we not all claim to be born equal anyway? so why would we need to waste money voting on it?
If we vote on that, then we would have to vote on the Irish law deeming all mothers feeble minded, less evolved than men and mere berthing/birthing vessels under our Maritime laws.
Seamus
Sorry but for me voting yes is to legitimise gay parenting, which I don’t agree with. I don’t thing you can just separate marriage and parenting as different issues, they go “hand in hand” with each other as such.
Tony, it’s strange how those that oppose homosexual parenting are the only ones that wish marriage and parenting to be synonymous. It’s the ‘two birds, one stone’ mentality. Legally, they are not mutually exclusive, I’m sorry to tell you. Your prejudice is clear for all to see and your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese.
@ Séamus White
The rules are quite simple really Séamus. The man and woman who create a child are primarely responsible for its future. The state has a secondary responsability when children are in need. If a single person, or two males, or two females, choose to deliberately have a fatherless/motherless child; then that is their responsibility.
What is disingenuous is that the state would, for the first time, sanction as marriage, relationships which deprive children of either a father or a mother.
It is not for me to allow or disallow gay persons to marry, the only question is what is marriage, and why would a gay man choose to marry a woman, if that is not his choice. As for society/marriage, I believe redefining marriage will destroy children’s rights, further weaken an institution already on life support, and remove any reason for the state to have an interest in marriage.
Ha ha ! Right. Because there are plenty of arguments to deny a child a mother or father that make perfect sense. It’s nothing to do with prejudice, more common sense.
I don’t think children of heterosexual married couples will feel any less ‘bound’ after a small percentage of marriages happen between homosexual couples.
@ Paddy. Can you specify how allowing gay people to marry will destroy children’s rights, weaken marriage, and remove any reason for the state to have an interest in marriage?
@ Tony. Notwithstanding your opposition to gay parenting, do you think children who do have gay parents are better off or worse off by the fact that their parents can’t marry each other?
Seamus,
They are probably worse off but it is their gay parents who have put them in this position through their own selfishness, nobody else.
Studies show they are not worse off
@Paddy
Reading your predictable comments on articles about marriage for gay people, I never cease to be amazed that you can be so obtuse and that you can willfully ignore facts when they are presented to you. But that’s by the by.
I’m more interested in this comment:
“I believe redefining marriage will destroy children’s rights, further weaken an institution already on life support, and remove any reason for the state to have an interest in marriage.”
If you believe that marriage is an institution that’s already on life support, then you must agree that it’s heterosexual people who have caused it to be this way. Plenty of heterosexual people don’t take the institution of marriage seriously. They marry, divorce, re-marry. Separate. Divorce again.
Some people who get married have children. And some don’t. Luckily, our right to marry is not predicated on our ability to have children. Otherwise, marriage would happen far less frequently.
NOTHING will change for you if equal marriage rights are afforded to everyone in this country. If anything, marriage as an institution will become stronger as people who are desperate to get married but have so far been denied the right eventually get a chance to do so.
Your view is valid. Of course it is. You have every right to feel the way you do. But you don’t have a right to dictate that everyone else should live life according to your ‘values’. I find your values narrow-minded and exclusionary. And very unchristian.
Children being born into families where there is a mother and father who are married are not automatically protected from harm. If anything, the highest number of children who experience abuse, harm etc are children with one male and one female parent. So your argument about the ‘traditional’ family being best for children is a fallacy. And I find it astonishing that you simply refuse to acknowledge this.
@ Tony Thanks for clarifying that you believe that children are probably worse off if their same sex parents can’t get married. A clear reason why you should probably vote Yes next year so that those children will benefit from having married parents – if indeed the welfare of children is of concern to you.
@ Florence Nightingale
You may consider me obtuse, but I consider “gay marriage” an oxymoron. I don’t ignore facts, I understand that it takes a man + a woman to make children, and the child needs in so far as is practicable their mother and father. Now what part of that is difficult, because society set up marriage for persons of opposite gender going in this direction, where children were the natural consequence of the relationship. Get it!
Might I say there are equal marriage rights for everyone in this country, subject to the common restrictions, applied equally to all. Not currently married, not a close relation, not of the same gender, capable of consummation, of sound mind and above a certain age. Now that’s equality.
It is true that marriage is already weakened, not by any particular group, but by society as a whole. As we elevate the individual, and nurture the narcissistic, we get what we deserve as a society. Thus one in four of children now live in single parent homes in Ireland. So now we decide to redefine marriage, instead of strengthening it. Why not get rid of no fault divorce for instance. That would slow down a few narcissists.
As for my views been unchristian, well Christ may not agree with you. He certainly spoke well of marriage between a man and a woman. The two shall cleave to one another and become one flesh. Cleaving is just something unique to male/female relationships.
‘I don’t ignore facts’. Yes you do, you give attention to some and ignore others because some suit your agenda and others don’t. If you acknowledged the truth, you would acknowledge that the restriction of marriage and parental rights harms children, but you poorly twist it to say you are protecting children. When confronted with this, you side-step that fact and revert to ‘only a man and a woman can bear children’. That does not mean that only they can have and raise children though, just as well as men and women. And restricting marriage will not prevent that, but WILL harm those children. Go on Paddy, side-step that or ignore it altogether. It’s undeniable that your agenda is to habe your social situation selfishly preserved and considered top of the pile.
No seamus, for me that is not a reason to vote yes as to do so would be to endorse what I don’t agree with ie. Gay parenting. As I said before, and I think Paddy said something similar, it is their gay parents who have put these children in this position, nobody else.
@ Tony. As I said before, you want to deny some children the benefits of having married parents. As I said to Paddy, it’s disingenuous to blame other people and punish their children because you disagree with the existence of their family.
It’s not a flash of lightning Paddy. It is the Nort insignia.
How dare you sir, how very dare you!!
@ Ron North
I pray that as a Rogue Trooper you would not dain to hold such callous against me.
@ David Nolan
That is quite a good analogy David, mind if I use it?
I also wish he didn’t have to talk about being Gay, as if it’s my business or something,it’s also very very boring.
I’m not sure that I get the point of marriage, as traditionally understood, will suddenly disappear if same sex marriage is allowed.
A majority of people are heterosexual so what’s natural to them, ie.man and woman marrying and producing children will continue regardless of whatever legislation is passed.
The definition of marriage as being a union between a male and female and forming a family is fine.
However, nature has also determined that there are many for whom marriage is a union with someone of the same sex.
One understanding does not, on my opinion cancel out the other.
Present day society seems to accept that young people just live together without committing to a marriage and I don’t hear too many people objecting to it.
I remain to be convinced that voting for same sex marriage is anything but good.
Fully agree. If you don’t want gay marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex. I really think it’s that simple. I don’t like curry but I don’t insist that no one else can have it.
Same sex union is NOT a marriage, nor will it ever be.
Go away and let us have our proper marriages, as it was then, is now and always shall be.
No
It will be in, oh, around 4-5 months.
Marriage evolves. Social constucts change over time. Marriage is not how it was 50 years ago. It’s vastly different to what it was 100 years ago and almost unrecognisable from what it was 1000 years ago.
Now you may be afraid of change and have selfish ideals, but it will change. It will continue to evolve. You would be better off accepting change or marriage will become a thing of the past.
Exactly and e-volve is love backwards and we evolve back to Source where we marry our own inner males and females….
.nothing to do with patriarchal marriage institutions with husbands to husband the breeder vessel wombmen for the system.
Let us evolve back to the doughnut s(tone) of Eire…Tailteann.. and have 2 parties and not 3 in the contract…for the outward marriage.
I honestly do not know how your mind works Catherine.
Then why is he taking every opportunity to do so?
All politicians must be a tad gay, because none of ‘em can give a straight answer!
I do not see anyone pointing a gun to is head or torturing him into speaking about his sexuality, so why do it.?
He has free will.
I thought that myself. Wishes he didn’t have to to talk about being gay but starts banging on about it anyway !! Some people love being the victim.
Tony, it’s quite simple. Disabled people probably don’t like to talk about disabilities, but must in order to highlight their needs. Homeless people do not wish to talk about the fact that they are homeless but need to in order to garner the attention their cause needs. People who suffer with debilitating conditions would rather not constantly discuss those conditions, but if they need others to listen and help, then they need to discuss it.
Does that make sense?
No it doesn’t actually. Comparing the needs of disabled or homeless people with gay people wanting to marry or adopt kids doesn’t make any sense at all. Needs are one thing wants are another.
The need to gain our constitutional right of equality is a great need, trust me.
The journalist also probably asked him a question about it.
You’d know you never had to fight for any of your rights eh Tony.
Dont care what way he swings, pity he represents a rotton, corrupt, self-serving sick party, thats why I wouldn’t give him the time of day
The gay debate is been used as distraction, the more they can focus peoples minds on this referendum,
which seems to be going one way, the more
they can make themselfs look like they are on everyones side. Or most at least.
Ah yes, it’s all a conspiracy. It’s not equality we want, it’s world domination!
I see someone deleted my earlier post! . Freedom of information and freedom of expression, you have a cheek. Shame on you.what I said must have hit home with some people. You will never ever get me to believe sodomy is normal. .. If we accept this, then what, bestiality. Ignorance is no excuse. You’ll probably delete this too, new world order agenda no 1,, getting people to accept homosexuality as normal behaviour. .
New world order?! Your tinfoil hat is slipping.
WELCOME TO TRUTH | Full Documentary 2014: http://youtu.be/oAaQTnCNo70….. educate yourself on how this world is run, don’t be so naive, knowledge is power,
Sure John, the stories are far more interesting than our mundane lives.
He is obviously another lying politician, ” I wish I didn’t have to speak about this ” There are much more important issues that affect more people in our society. USAID and the state department funding LGBT to the hilt, minority issues are always a welcome distraction from the wars and corruption, for the politicians that will do nothing but promote wars, who can doubt that this issue is not being used to promote corrupt governments and spread war in nations like Russia Etc.
No one is forcing John Lyons to speak about this issue but, I suppose since most Irish politicians can’t talk about the important issues, this will have to do.
Come on Ailbhe….
Lets get into nitty gritty.
Your a god, god does not exist, all your arguement are the truth.
You’re not making any sense. God is fictional, thought up and taught to others to reassure people, to give answers to what was as yet unknown and unfortunately it became used to control societies, well in some ways but unethically in many others
It’s natural for people to want answers, we are an intelligent and curious species, and it makes sense that we would want to explain the once inexplicable. However to now argue that the stories that were made up are ‘fact’ when the real facts are known and understood is arrogant and misguided. Teaching ignorance and upholding it above all else is idiotic.
Ailbhe how do you know God is fictional.
Are you a
deciple of dawkings
He found the reply button! I know because there is no evidence to support it. As there is no evidence to suggest any deity ever existed. However many of the claims have been rubbished, which heavily suggests it is all made up.
By all means David, believe in whatever you wish, just do not have the arrogance to force it on others.
Ailbhe O’Nolan, you do not know for sure that there is no God, possibly it is the collective intelligence of all living beings, possibly there is no god ! Contrary to the professed truths of LGBT most scientists do believe in a God, even if they choose to call it the universal intelligence.
Religion has always been a means of control for the elite, your assertion that this is a “conspiracy theory ” NAFF, its like privatisation , if you want to take possession of an asset, first destroy it. A one world order needs a one world religion, a religion invented and run by such people would be worse than any present religion that these people use to divide and kill.
The present LGBT campaign is openly paid for by the US State Dep., USAID and money is distributed by US embassy’s throughout the world, poor country’s are denied aid if they do not tow the line, this is subversion of democracy, LGBT comprises less than 4% of the population, that’s traany’s, gay’s, the whole lot.
” The New Thought Police ” by Tammy Bruce is a good read about LGBT.
See if you can find one politician that does not admit to the New World Order !
http://youtu.be/Ptcp07v_w-w
Ailbhe, you are living in the past, there is no theory about the conspiracy anymore, maybe you can explain why attacks on LGBT people has risen in western country’s, despite its “normalisation”, and in its targeted country’s like Russia.
All bs conspiracy theories to make our lives more interesting!
Ailbhe, any chance of adding a bit of substance to your post to back up your theory, there is no debate, just your theory unless you put some facts out there. You could start by telling us why the LGBT issue is more important than homelessness ? Or all those starving souls in the world ? Since you prefer the placebo to the cure I will start the ball rolling,
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/despite-sequestration-obama-funds-lgbt-groups-in-other-countries
You can give us your opinion on why LGBT is so interested in fighting Americas wars ? Could it be the money ?
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/04/09/usaid-launches-partnership-to-promote-lgbt-rights/
Quit with your BS and say something meaningful.
Your argument is based on the assumption that I think LGBT issues are more important than hunger and homelessness. I don’t. Sorry to burst your bubble
Ailbhe, that was easy, its an interesting debate when you want to look at all sides in an attempt to find what’s really happening. What do you think of the assault on Russia, Pussy Riot ?
I believe any laws in any countries that oppress anybody should be challenged. What do you think of laws that oppress people?
Well, we have loads of such laws here, in the Russian law to protect children homosexuality is not mentioned once but, the point I’m making is, is it just to incite war and civil unrest by using a minority to try overthrow or take control of another country ?
Another example is, is it right for our president or even constitutional for the president to sign into law the water bill when most people know he is doing so to garner support for his LGBT and gay marriage agenda, why cant the majority have a say on the water bill ?
When you have a country where a minority can abuse public office in favour of their own minority interests and subvert the wishes of the majority it is not a democracy. Could this have anything to do with their hatred of Putin, Russia and Russia’s refusal to bow to minority governance ? Like it or not, Putin is democratically elected and does not allow minority’s to dictate his policy’s, a much more democratic system than we have.
You really do latch on to those conspiracy theories don’t ya. Ya must have nothing better to do!
Ailbhe, are you serious ?,You actually believe politicians, big business and special interests groups don’t conspire to push their agenda ! those that fawn on corruption will always need your lame excuse of not opening the Pandora’s box of truth, your theory that people are conspiring against your chosen reality is BS, you are simply intolerant of others rights to have freedom of thought and freedom from the establishment dictates, its akin to fascism.
You have nothing to fear from most people, they are very tolerant, most people these days feel oppressed and abandoned, loading more nonsense on them is not lightening their burden, we want the real issues confronted, not establishment supported special interests groups further strengthened to usurp our democracy. No placebos please ! address the peoples needs.
‘Your theorybthat people are conspiring against your chosen reality’. I hav non such theory. You are plainy making $hit up now! You seem to be fabricating something to argue against. Then applying your bs conspiracy theories. You must lead a boring life to need to do that. Get a new hobby buddy and stop pretending.
Ailbhe, that’s like your theory that my arguments are based on a premise that you think LGBT issues are more important than homelessness Etc. You grasp at straws because you have no argument nor the ability to formulate any. Explore new horizons, your small mind needs a grasp on reality, I don’t believe in conspiracy theory’s, and I have no faith in people like you that resort to them to avoid reality.
Nobody is conspiring against you, it’s simply your lack of mental ability to construct an argument that drives you to hide behind your belief in ” conspiracy theory “.
But, I forgot, you believe god does not exist, although you have no proof either way ! Your attitude is a bit like the inquisition, “our way or no way ” Your Bull $h1t does not stand up to reason.
Any publicity is nearly good publicity, Joan will be thrown out before the next election comes about, there might be some wanting to be leadership candidates for next leader of the party?
another nicey nice soft focus story about a Labour TD….Mr author we are not all dim you know and Mr Lyons like all other Labour TDs whether gay , straight bisexual , transgender or all of the above will be getting their marching orders
One two three ahhhhhh
I
If your of
An athiest secular disposition, your arguements are based on the none existance of a superior supernatural god.
You believe you
Created yourself and you are a god.u
I don’t know anybody that thinks they created themself or that thinks they are a god. The truth is the fusion of the human sperm and ovum created a zygote that decended through the fallopian tube and attached itself to the endometrial lining. From this it developed into a foetus and so on until birth. That’s how we came about old boy! No magic man in the sky.
Its only secular athiest tha rubbish the existence of god.
That does not mean there is no evidence of a god.
Secular rubbish? You mean those that do not believe fairy stories that make use feel important!
Secular athiestism is a religion…
Sky fairy, thats childish, and very intolerant.
I used the word rubbish in a different context
Ailbhe.
Ailbhe your losing ground your arguements,dont stand up.
Says the guy that believes in the sky fairy and can’t use basic technology….
David your arguments are incoherent. Both linguistically they have a great many error so it is hard to determine what you are saying and positionally you find it difficult to respond directly to people. Learn to debate and to write coherently, and learn to hit ‘reply’ and maybe we could have a proper discussion.
pot kettle black Ailbhe
As ever, you have nothing to contribute. Good man
Ailbhe debating you here has very obvious limits.
The limits are clearly your lack of reading comprehension and technological ability. I’m very tired of wading through the comments to find where yours is and THEN attempting to decipher it.
Gerard no.
A
Im having a conversation with you thats evidence of,a god.
Em, nope. It’s evidence of you, me and smartphones
And if you don’t have children is your marriage void?Interesting how the institution of marriage is manipulated go suit religious ideology. Live and let live.
have your say