Dan Boyle opened a discussion on his Facebook Page last week concerning the Civil Partnership Bill and

its passage through

the Seanad this Wednesday July 7th 2010. Despite the serious concerns raised by me in relation to Pederasty he made no
input to the discussion, trying to close it down through one means or another. My initial concerns were raised by the local
media response to local Fine Gael TD Seymour Crawford’s call for a ‘Conscience Clause’, to be inserted. Seymour was
dubbed ‘Homophobic’, in a Northern Sound interview for raising this issue in his characteristically mild mannered style. A
term once used to reference violence and discrimination against Gays is now being used to slander anyone who raises any
concerns whatsoever. Meanwhile the typical troll gang rolled in on Dan’s page pushing the topic off the agenda on the last
two days prior to the Seanad debate, the very time it ought to have been discussed. Despite the expose given by the film
‘Fairytale in Kathmandu’, and the subsequent interview with Anton Savage on Today FM concerning poet Cathal
O’Searcaigh’s pederasty in Nepal the Gay lobby have succeeded in airbrushing the reality of homosexual pederasty from the
public debate. Something’s rotten in the body politik of the Irish Sate and has been for a long time. It is high time the public
responded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Thread from Dan Boyle’s Facebook Page following the passage of the Civil Partnership legislation through the
Dail and prior to the Seanad Debate. It seems Dan and the entire Oireachtas has chosen denial over debate where the issue
of pederasty is concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roderic O'Gorman
Deadly. Won't miss it so. Hope you aren't going to filibuster Dan!
Yesterday at 18:43 · Like

Paul V. Cassidy
I heard Seymour Crawfor TD on Northern Sound radio today calling for a conscience clause in the civil partnership bill and I
agree. I thought it unfair that the interviewer used the term 'Homophobic', to describe his stance. The term is now being
uses fallaciously by the Gay Pride lobby to suggest prejudice. The lobby are deliberately confusing language to fudge critical
semantical distinctions.The words phobia, bias, prejudice and preference are not interchangeable.. One can hold a
preference without holding a bias and a bias without holding a prejudice. Phobias can be legitimate or not and in any case
they're not illegal or prejudicial even if they seem irrational to some.
The Libertarian left are rapidly moving us to a position where they are suggesting that values are synonymous with
prejudice. They are confused in their thinking to a dangerous and in fact irrational degree. Homophobia on the other hand
does have a rational basis.
What of the distinction between equality and equivalence? The law can extend equality without being equivalent on the
matter of sexual orientation. In other words it can enshrine a preference or indeed a bias without implying a prejudice. It is
Ok for the State to show preference towards heterosexual partnerships where parenting and adoption is concerned and Ok
for parents to hope, prefer and educate their children towards heterosexual norms without precluding or discriminating
against the reality of homosexuality.
And what are the implications of presupposing that Gay Civil Liberties ought to be automatically transposed onto a Human
Rights level? What is the distinction between Cultural and Civil Liberties for that matter? For instance ought Traveller's be
given Civil Liberties consistent with their Culture; to have their semi-nomadic lifestyles respected and protected in legislative
terms? I would say so. But what would the implication of enshrining the equal right to semi-nomadic lifestyles to all in the
constitution be - Guess? The point is it would not be tenable socially to promote nomadism beyond the confines to the
Traveler community and so likewise with Homosexuality. Now Travellers would not ask for such a grandiose gesture but the
Gay lobby do - why? Because they are interested in extending the constituency and advancing a libertarian sexual culture
and that is a real basis for concern where today's culture of sexual hedonism is concerned. It may even constitute a valid
basis for being sexually phobic, in general.
The point is not every agenda can be elevated to the level of a human rights issue because the assumption behind such
rights is that they can and ought to be defended as universal rights regardless of religious, cultural, ideological distinction or
geopolitical implications. If we said for example that the right to vote ought to be a human right would that lead us
inexorably to war with China? Can we assume to impose western secular sexual agendas onto the Muslim world at any cost
- at the cost of war with Iran for instance? Many are suggesting so and Colm O Gormon as head of Amnesty International
Ireland will one day legitimise war on the grounds of the gay rights agenda.
I support Gay Civil Liberties to a significant degree but feel today's legislation went overt the top, will be challenged
constitutionally and will suffer a serious setback as a consequence.
Seymour is right to have taken the stand he did and will be proved right in due course....
21 hours ago · Like ·
Delete
Suzanne McEneaney
admittedly I didn't read all of this, I gave up at the 'homophobia does have a rational basis' bit. 'Homophobia', like other
phobias, by definition is an irrational fear.
9 hours ago · Like

Paul V. Cassidy
Your stance shows the typically dismissive and disrespectful reaction of those promoting this flawed legislation.
Is a phobia of sharks irrational? I suppose it depends on the degree of proximity and/or exposure. Perhaps a person who
was a victim of a shark attack would remain phobic regardless. Perhaps being irrational and being without reason are
distinct.
I guess I've probably reached the end of your attention span by now. so here's the Scribb link to the PDF format document
in any eventhttp://scr.bi/cMNBsc
But the assertion that calling for a conscience clause in the Civil Partnership Bill constitutes 'Homophobia', is clearly
slanderous and simply intended as an open ended slur by a group now engaging in inverse discrimination so as to promote
a libertarian agenda which preoccupies itself with the notion of sexual freedoms over sexual values.
We used to use the term 'Homophobic', to denote violence and discrimination towards Gays now I guess it's been
reclassified to target those expressing reasonable concerns.
And AIDS is on the rise again...... be concerned, it really is appropriate.
9 hours ago · Like ·
Delete

Paul V. Cassidy
The part in the PDF Scribb doc that addresses 'Homophobia':

"And as I maintained at the outset the basis for homophobia could well be discussed elsewhere in terms of the significant
confusion shown by prominent members of the Irish Gay lobby - Cathal O'Sharkey, David Norris and Emmet Stagg, despite
the latter being a married man. One could go on to discuss the percentage of the UK's quarter of a million sex offenders
that profess homosexuality as their sexual orientation or indeed the ongoing dispute between the mainstream gay
movement and a significant lobby group within the homosexual community seeking to reduce or remove the age of sexual
consent so as to eliminate the sexual offence of pederasty. What about the fact that AIDs affects 33million globally and is
once again on the rise in Ireland and that the spread of the disease is closely associated with anal intercourse and
intravenous drug abuse?"
9 hours ago · Like ·
Delete

Ciara Brown
When is the debate on the unemployment crisis? When are ye moving the writs for the by elections? When are ye removing
the flouride from our drinking water?
7 hours ago · Like

Mairéad De Búrca
A conscience clause could not work and shows that Seymour Crawford is a dinosaur, longing for bygone days when
individual pharmacists for example could refuse to stock certain prescriptions, because it went against their conscience. If
something is passed in law, it's either the law, or it isn't. If it's the law, then we all have to abide by it. The end. To suggest
that a conscience clause could work is illogical.
6 hours ago · Like
Paul V. Cassidy
'Illogical', - How so?
What will happen is the very first person to be prosecuted under the bill will take a court action all the way through the
various courts right up to the supreme court and onto the European Court.
At that point those opposed will not only be airing the issue of the failure to grant a simple amendment but will blow the
lid on the entire can of worms that is the libertarian agenda, including the fact that children placed in the care of gay
couples are statistically exposed to a far greater prospect of being abused. Adult survivors will subsequently sue the care
authorities and the couples concerned for willfully placing them at risk. It represents crass sentimentality and utter naivety
at best . But Dan like so many other politicians will seek refuge behind a lobby prepared to maul anyone or anything that
gets in their way.
To Seymour's critics I would ask:
What did Cathal O'Sharkey think he was doing in Nepal when he was having sex with a 12 year old boy - surrogate
parenting? ;
What was Emmet Stagg doing up the park with drug addicted rent boys in his State car while Minister for the Homeless? -
offering them temporary shelter;
What was Gerry Ryan doing defending Emmet Stagg's reputation on air accusing his critics of 'homophobia'? - "Going along
to get along";
What was David Norris doing rationalising the arguments of mature Gay men who seek to legalise pederasty in the pages of
the Irish Times? - being Joycean.
And what are you doing now Dan refusing to insert a simple conscience clause in this legislation? - being a considerate
heterosexual parent.
To those who say that there isn't an increased risk of child abuse where gay couples are concerned the mere fact that there
are two men involved greatly increases the risk regardless of their sexual orientation; the fact that they are Gay increases
the risk further. The State is simply not a liberty to make these grandiose gestures to the orthodoxy of the day no more
than it was in the past.
Sacrifice your own children if you must but do not sacrifice the law; that was the pattern in the past afterall which at least
left survivors with recourse to the law. I'll grant Ahern that if I grant him nothing else, perhaps his generosity was his fault..
I offer my support to Seymour Crawford on this as far as he wished to take the matter. To imply that his particular request
is homophobic or Jurassic is ridiculous. It amazes me how every generation finds new ways of deluding themselves carrying
their agendas to extremes lemming-like till they have to be salvaged of the cliff floor like all their predecessors. All people
want is to be liked so 'They gotta go along to get along', suspending all critical faculties in the process. If that is the price of
being liked then I for one am prepared to forgo the dubious merit of social acceptance where this debate is concerned.
Time will tell the tale and will reward those who act with informed conscience and due care at least where children are
concerned.
4 hours ago · Like ·
Delete

Mairéad De Búrca
Illogical because the law is the law for everyone, not for everyone except those who don't like it.
I find your defence of children very ironic, given that the people we trusted most (those with the very best-informed
consciences) were the perpetrators of such endemic abuse of Ireland's children. Your assertion that child abuse victims had
recourse to the law is dishonest, given the struggles they have endured to even be believed, while their abusers were
protected by their own, private, conscience-led laws.
4 hours ago · Like

Paul V. Cassidy
The law can be partial and needs to be in this case. Equality is a utopian concept. A North star perhaps but a destiny which
cannot be attained in this life. Love is the ultimate goal: above truth, above justice, above equality. Every other social good
must seek to address itself to it even the good of trying to build an open and transparent society which accommodates the
reality of homosexuality. We must address ourselves to the greater social good.
Despite the dominant culture of acquiescence where child sex abuse was concerned Irish law ultimately remained available
to the victims of abuse because with the exception of 'child sex grooming', which remained legal in this country until the
naughties, the law did not permit the rape of children. So despite the offences being tolerated culturally they were
ultimately prosecutable; hence the tribunals, court cases and compensation agreements.
If we make it legal to expose children to increased risk of abuse what recourse will those children have in time? Perhaps you
do not know the language of disappointment cut into your soul by the shrapnel of trauma. Consider the clip of the Hotel
proprietor in Nepal trying to explain to Neasa that her friend the Irish poet laureate Cathal O Searcaigh was abusing boys
under his and her care in his hotel room. I know this bitter inconsolable feeling. No actor could convey the pain of realising
that something so awful has gone on in the full light of day. This clip makes me weep because it reminds me of my feelings
over the child sex grooming of my twin brother and its impossible outworkings. I am approaching 50 and still cannot
remedy the irreconcilable rift; the wounds tear at my psychology like some scab that wont heal; the wound has become
bigger than me.
Consider carefully the 'Ice cream' treat as the prelude to abuse. That ice cream is what makes the problem so unsolvable,
the wound so incurable; a deal was struck afterall. The ice cream as metaphor for giving head, for giving virginity, for giving
consent. Those boys must go on to be Fathers and Husbands utterly compromised by Cathal. The ice cream like the wound
will always be bigger than them a symbol of Cathal's cock and of their self-betrayal. Gang rape and mutilation would be
easier addressed psychologically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB70b6FHLUE
Consider further the scene where Nesa Ni Chianain confronts Cathal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9uWLdioBs&feature=player_embedded
Note Cathal is genuinely confused about the impropriety of his actions. We are told conveniently the boys are all over the
age of consent - how plausible. All I can say to you is that these men are that confused, that self deluded, that they actually
celebrate their obscene conquests with verse and video. That is what much of Greek art was about. Well this is not Classical
Greece and neither Cathal O'Searcaigh or David Norris or Emmet Stagg are Gods.
I demand debate on this....
2 hours ago · Like ·
Delete

Mairéad De Búrca
Good man, Paul, debate is always good and I admire your passion. I am also very sorry for your troubles, and hear your
truth loud and clear. You refer in particular to the O Searcaigh documentary. I watched that and I, too, was deeply
disturbed by it. I agree that children must be protected from all predators. The problem I have with equatinghomosexuality
to paedophilia is that any research I have seen states the opposite - that it is no more related than hetrosexuality is related
to paedophilia. Perhaps you have other research? I would be willing to read it. Any homosexual people I have met have
been very loving souls, and I would not begrudge them happiness with a stable partner. As you say though, we must
debate this and many more things in Ireland.
2 hours ago · Like

Paul V. Cassidy
Ok lets get David Norris into this also.
Sometime ago I asked Dan to obtain the numbers on the sex offenders register in Ireland; he said he would, but didn't. The
figure ranges from 150,000 to 250,000 in the UK. You may not be aware that within the homosexual constituency there is a
persistent and growing lobby to decriminalise pederasty a debate to which both Cathal and David have addressed
themselves favourably on a number of occasions. Emmet Stagg was such a frequenter of the Phoenix Park rent boy scene
while Minister that social services finally convinced the Garda to arrest him in the act - and they did. He wriggled out of it
though and was later transferred from Minister of State for the Homeless to Minister for Nuclear Energy.
In any event the simple fact is that men are thousands of times more likely to abuse than women; allow two men adopt a
child and logically you increase the prospect of abuse. Allow two Gay men adopt a child and you increase the risk further.
But as I do not have the same resources at my disposal as Deputy Boyle has I would ask him to come up with research
facts to support his view that he is not exposing children to increased risk. So Deputy how many men on the sex offenders
register claim homosexual orientation and what statistically are the increased chances of children being abused by gay
parents? It's a simple enough projection - on the basis I have just outlined - but I'd rather the Deputy referred the matter to
his research staff.
The point of the film Mairead is the level to which men delude themselves in order to give themselves permission to act out
their sexual fantasies. Just look at pornography and consider that it largely represents the acting out of male fantasy. Then
consider Gay male fantasies and those tending toward pederasty. The reality is pederasty is a well developed sub-cult within
the gay community even to the extent that it forms the basis for a year in year out debate amongst the organisers of the
New York Gay Pride Parade. Young boys under-tow by adult gay males are referred to as 'Chicken', a reference to virginal
ass cheeks. They are highly sought after and the principle reason for such men going on annual sex holidays to developing
world destinations. The late Bishop of Ferns liked holidaying in Bangkok.
One of my brothers is in a gay civil partnership in New York and happily so, but the Irish legislation goes further offering no
conscience clause and openly aspiring to legalising State based gay adoptions as par for the course.
So lets see if we can find out what Senator Norris has to say on the matter. Is he any less confused than Cathal or Emmet
who is of course not Gay, nor a pederast, just like the religious who on recent conviction in the high court explained that he
was not a paedophile because he only fancied altar boys. Well God Bless we can all sleep soundly now.
2 hours ago · Like ·
Delete

Mairéad De Búrca
You have obviously been thinking about this for a long time, Paul. I haven't. I still don't agree with you that homosexual
men (or women) equals people who desire children sexually. However, I will read the literature if and when I am directed to
it.
2 hours ago · Like

Paul V. Cassidy
I'm not bringing women into the debate because statistically they don't figure as abusers to any meaningful degree whereas
men do.
Some of the most prominent male gay rights activists in this country have effectively condoned pederasty; a term which is
specifically about homosexual men having sex with male minors - boys. Pederasty is about adult males having seek with
juvenile boys. Many adult male Homosexuals are also Pederasts or engage in pederasty while on foreign holidays. This is on
record and easily debated. How much clearer does this need to be made?
Where lesbians are concerned the issues are cultural and value based whereas where men are concerned they are definitely
also risk based. Society is entitled not only to request a conscience clause where this experimental legislation is concerned
but also to rule against State based adoptions to gay - male - homosexual couples.
I'm researching as I go along here but am old enough to recall the sheer idiotic scenarios that many of these men have
exposed themselves to. Fr. Ted could not do justice to them. All of the Green Ministers would be contemporaries of my own
and ought to have no difficulty considering the issues involved, the difference being they are paid to do so whereas I am
not.
Nonetheless I'll try to compile a PDF format document of references on this but as I say the onus of research lies with the
Government, specifically with the Greens and particularly with Deputy Boyle as Party Chairman. It seems to me the Greens
are joyriding on an issue they consider to be deliverable because there are no major vested interests opposing it unlike
Shannon, Tara and Corrib Gas. Well if they think there's a free lunch here they're mistaken. They ought consult with the
Bishops on that one.
And I have not been 'thinking about it for a long time', I've been affected by it for a long time - the difference being I'm a
victim not a perpetrator or an apologist as I assume I've made perfectly clear by the tone and content of my comments.
about an hour ago · Like ·
Delete

Mairéad De Búrca
I wasn't trying to insult you when I said that you've been thinking about this for a long time! You obviously have, because
you have gathered much information on it.
58 minutes ago · Like

Paul V. Cassidy
Thanks I was being cautious.... there is a need.
I've posted the following references on my page to Pederasty which is the part Pedophilia which the Gay community are
trying to effectively disappear rather than debate because only they seem to 'Get it'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a real danger that the Gay - male - community go into denial about the reality of Pederasty. Unlike paedophilia
which is about adults who sexuality is exclusively oriented towards children, pederasty is specifically about Gay males who
in addition to their homosexuality also engage in pederasty - sex with juvenile boys, above or below the age of consent.
In addition to the film 'Fairytale of Kathmandu', which is 59mins long and can be downloaded for €4.99 below there is also
an extensive radio interview with Anton OSavage of Today FM. In this interview the extent of Cathal's self serving sexual
delusion becomes more and more evident as he goes along finally descending into a Jackson-esque Peter Pan style pattern
of self-justification.
This is clearly a long established and long 'justified', pattern of delusion with the male homosexual community. The fact that
instead of addressing the area of confusion the Gay community have in fact sought instead to erase the term from the
dictionary shows the danger of considering Gay partnerships as suitable for adoption.
Ruling out a conscience clause from the legislation is a way of implicating society at large in the pederasty of libertarianism
just as once we were implicated through a religious culture of complicity intended to create sexually dysfunctional young
men that were to be recruits not only for homosexuality but also for the clergy.

http://www.fairytaleofkathmandu.com/index.php?page=download-buy

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PcJmZofYkM&feature=related
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87s8pwqfY7k&feature=related
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dkj7951KHU&feature=related

Paul V. Cassidy
"There is some merciless bastard who let this story out," he added indignantly. "I want the Garda Commissioner to find out
and to out who the rat is who brought this out into the public in this demeaning and irresponsible way."

Pat Cox of the European Parliament and Progressive Democrat fame defending Minister Emmet Stagg's indiscretions
with drug addicted rent boys in the Phoenix Park while Minister with responsibility for the Homeless in 1994.

The 'Rat', as it turned out was no other than the esteemed Jesuit champion of Dublin's homeless young men Fr. Peter
McVerry S.J.
The Minister was personally defended by Taniste Dick Spring and in turn the entire political and media establishment. He
retains his seat in the Dail to this day. At the time it was reported that Minister was frequently seen kerb crawling in the
Phoenix Park in his State Limo..

only in Ireland
11 minutes ago · Like ·
Delete

Paul V. Cassidy

My invite to Senator David Norris (Facebook Page) to take part in this discussion.

Hi David
There's a debate going on, on Dan Boyle's page concerning the Civil Partnership Bill. I'd like you to inform us as to your
understanding of the term and practice of 'Pederasty', and of the movement within sections of the Gay community to
legitimise sex between adult men and boys. You addressed the topic in a submission to the weekend edition of the Irish
Times some years back.
about an hour ago · Like ·
Delete

Suzanne McEneaney

@ Paul, several posts ago, a fear of sharks is rational, a phobia of sharks is, by definition, irrational, ie someone who has a
panic attack just seeing a picture of a shark is phobic. Someone who stays out of shark infested water because they are
afraid of sharks is rational. I do not see the connection with homosexuality. I do not dismiss the debate, just the incorrect
understanding of the words 'homophobic' and/or 'rational'.

about an hour ago · Like

Suzanne McEneaney

Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my attention span, it is your understanding of the English language, and (now
also) the causes of AIDS that I found problematic.

about an hour ago · Like

Paul V. Cassidy

Well phobia, phobic and the definitions of same vary.... Your'e more right than wrong but we could discuss the idea that
irrational beliefs are not without reason. As someone whose life was seriously impacted by Pederasts - Homosexual men
engaging in sexual activity with minors - I assure you the comparison with sharks - as in predatory beasts - fits the bill. But
still I retain a sense of humanity and as you might note I referred to Cathal O'Searchaigh's self-serving sexual delusions
rather than his beastiality. If you watch that film and listen to the audio youtube clip with Anton Savage you will hear what
is heart felt emotional confusion and deep denial.
As for AIDs and the relationship with anal intercourse be it homo or hetero the amount of tearing involved leads to a
greater chance of blood fluid being exchanged in the anal passage where infection readily occurs. In Africa the issue is
prostitution, recreational sex and chauvinistic attitudes toward women more than homosexuality. In the West it's
homosexuality, intravenous drug use and the increasing incidence of anal intercourse within the heterosexual community as
advocated by the gay and libertarian crusaders intent on replacing sexual values with sexual freedoms. 'All for one and one
for all'.
Good evening...

Paul V. Cassidy

Suzanne
So the debate has really narrowed down to an issue of philology in so far as it centers around the meaning and relevance of
the words 'Homophobic', (this was the charge made against Deputy Seymour Crawford in the Northern Sound interview)
and the word 'Pederasty', a word which the Gay lobby appear to be attempting to airbrush out of their lexicography of
terms.
The reason being that sex between men and boys has been justified since Greek times by homosexuals. The issue is the
age at which it constitutes Pedophilia - which is a criminal offence. The mechanism being used to broaden the justification
for Pederasty is the campaign to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts between men and boys. Twelve is the
target age the campaigners are working to although some wish to have the age of consent removed altogether an so
remove the legal basis on which to prosecute Pedophilia. In other words in their ideal world any adult could have sex with
any child assuming they obtain their consent, which of course would be great for ice-cream sales, the beach and yea the
sharks - whats the term for an irrational fear of sharks by the way?.
So I'll try to do some work on those two words today. And note Senator Norris has chosen not to accept the invitation to
join this discussion because he condones pederasty. In fact his romance with Ulysses is in no small way rooted in the
validation it offers to the notion of sexual initiations of youth by older more experienced adults. But the fact that he is in
good company in literary terms does no make it right or desirable nor a credible basis on which the model the family.
I am more than happy with Gay Civil Partnership and giving gay men custodial access to their children should they be
Fathers but
I am not happy with the notion of State based adoptions to Gay (Male) couples as neither the State nor anyone else has the
right to take that risk on children's behalf. Perhaps you feel it would be impolite to refuse. Well this isn't about being polite
its about getting it right.
So thank you for engaging with me on this rather lonesome discourse but it does need to take place....
Dan are you out there?

6 hours ago · Like ·

Delete

Suzanne McEneaney

Paul, Child sexual abuse is wrong and all kinds of sexual assault are against the law. Just say I was sexually assaulted as a
child by a heterosexual white male, would that mean that all heterosexual white males should be denied the right to marry,
or enter into civil partnerships? No, I cannot see any logic or justice there. I think you weaken your argument against
pederasty (as you call it), by confusing it with an argument against homosexuals, since both homo and heterosexual people
commit sexual crimes and both homosexual and heterosexual people can have loving and healthy sexual relationships then
surely society should be promoting honest and equal relationships as well as turning the full rigors of the law against those
who harm others by using sexual violence.

2 hours ago · Like

Suzanne McEneaney

References to Emmet Stagg etc are irrelevant, in fact most prostitution is homosexual.

2 hours ago · Like

Paul V. Cassidy

Dan Boyle is a recent comer to the Irish body politik and a welcome one at that. I respect - as a fellow environmentalist -
the Greens general contribution to advancing the Green agenda in government despite some serious reservations, notably,
Shannon, Tara and Corrib. I feel it's my duty to school Dan up a bit here as to the general character of the Irish body politik
where the issue of pederasty is concerned. Comments about Emmet Stagg are relevant particularly given his brief in relation
to the homeless at the time. Pat Cox's contribution was in my view disgraceful. He and a squad of politicos, including Dick
Spring, literally jumped down the throats of Social Services and the Garda Siochana at the time for merely doing their job.
The Garda moved reluctantly on the matter after the Minister's activities had come to the attention of all the relevant
services. Cathal Sharky has of course, as a nice guy, however deluded, left us the record of his own personal confusion on
the matter on video and audio and we owe him greatly for his personal honesty in this regard. Others, however, have taken
careful steps to remove their own confused contributions from the public record.

I need to say this again and again before I proceed: I support Gay Civil Partnership as recognition of loving commitment if
nothing else. I have seen my own brother and his partner’s relationship steady out tremendously. The relationship seem to
become sea worthy and fit for purpose, as it were, leading to a deepening and greater acceptance all round, as the family
finally accepted his partner as being of equal merit to those of his brothers/sisters.

Now for the critical part...

I'm afraid like others you want the word 'Pederasty', simply to disappear from Gay lexicography as though it had never
existed when till quite recently is was trumpeted as a must have accessory for mature male homosexuals. There is an
attempt to normalise the matter as sexual standards slip - relatively speaking - under a rising tide of hedonism promoted by
the libertarian agenda. You really do need to consider the film 'Fairytale of Kathmandu', and the interview with Anton
Savage. I was once a boy utterly innocent of matters sexual and the most important person to me in the world at that time
was sexually groomed and made a play thing by a network of pederasts. We were 9 years old and the toxic psychological
legacy of that event lives on like our own personal 'Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Russian Roulette'. My entire life seems to be an
attempt to escape from the crater of this event and each time I reach the top of the crater the edge caves in sending me
hurdling back down the cliff under a new mound of debris. I am three years of fifty and committed to a life long struggle. I
have requested the Lord to give me permission to wage a 100 year war from the date of the event to the failure of my
health. If he grants my wish my war will end in 2072. So please understand my resolve on this matter makes absolute zero
seem relative.

The male homosexual community need to square up honestly to an open debate on pederasty. It is their word and a
tradition which till of late they were quite willing to boast of. There is no similar tradition of ennobling the sexual abuse of
minors in heterosexual community. Abuse occurs but not as a socially acceptable cultural norm. My wish is not to hang
anyone in particular but rather to have the matter addressed openly once and for all. If the Gay community are prepared to
disavow pederasty and accept it as sexual deviancy then I will accept them at their word, if not, then why should I or the
Legislature of Ireland?

I have mentioned before the argument that the risk factor involved in Gay partnership arises primarily from the fact that
two men are involved, men being thousands of times more likely to abuse then women. This risk factor does not apply to
Lesbian parenting although for many it seems equally unacceptable for both value based and psychological reasons. In any
event I won’t ague on that one - time will tell. But I will argue the case where male homosexual partnerships are concerned,
Firstly, because of the fact that two men are involved; Secondly, because they are both Gay; and Thirdly, due to the
longstanding historical association between Homosexuality and Pederasty. I did not make that so. It is simply ingrained as a
supposed 'Exotic', dimension of Homosexual culture. Just look at the literature. And yes we did get ice cream too Sue. Yes it
is as crass, as cheap and as stupid as that.

And lastly - perhaps you missed this earlier. Child sex grooming was legal in Ireland until legislation in the naughties - can't
recall the exact date - after a young north side juvenile had been groomed into becoming a male prostitute for a circle of
homosexual men engaging in pederasty. He was saved by the Garda Siochana who dealt with the matter swiftly and
promoted amending legislation. But you and others want this word 'PEDERASTY', simply to go away. You want to roll back
the legislation so that more juvenile males can be inducted into sexual serfdom to middle aged perverts.

With due respect, you are clearly being duped by men who are masters of manipulation and self-serving sexual delusions;
and who have made themselves conspicuously absent from this debate. If so may I advise you to take care of your male
children because they are not safe. And the diabolical dimension to the tale - should they abuse your children - will be that
you endorsed the very rational you should have been challenging. This is the Cross, traditional Irish Mothers the length and
breadth of this County bear and you will find it on your back too if you are not careful. This is simply the past revisited
under a different guise. Reject the twisted self-serving sexual delusion that is pederasty as you would reject Satan himself.

I suggest you make your support for this legislation conditional as I have done. I am a very progressive, compassionate and
tolerant man despite the damage and I give Cathal O'Searcaigh due respect for allowing his error be mapped out in public. I
call on Senator David Norris to follow Cathal's good example and to do likewise; and for the passage of this legislation to be
postponed pending appropriate amendments.
Hi Dan
I'm very disappointed at your failure to address my concerns on this issue particularly in relation to Pederasty as a well
documented reality of Irish political and Ecclesiastical life. My principle concern is that political correctness is blinding the
authorities to the threat of pederasty today just as poor education, social conformity and class ambition did in the past. Your
failure to make even a single comment on this discussion thread which you initiated - on this your own page - gives me
cause for concern. I'm afraid I am going to have to pursue my concerns independently from here on.
Perhaps you will be given an opportunity to wax lyrical in the Senate this Wednesday and to play the 'Bon Hommie', but
that warm feeling of acceptance and success will soon be replaced by one of isolation and disillusionment. I have not raised
a red-herring here but a very real issue which any responsible person would respond to.
My suggestion to you and the Greens would be to stick with the Green Agenda as you are plainly way out of your dept here.
I could warn you that this is the political banana skin that will ruin both your career and the credibility of the Greens and tell
you precisely why you are so blind to it. But then the term 'Blind-spots', defines the problem precisely. And here as in the
past it is the shadow projected down the path by your own massive ego that is blinding you to the danger.
Enjoy the day out.
Regards
Paul