nd

Seymour Crawford TD (FG) Slandered (?) on Northern Sound Local News (July 2 . 2010), for calling for
a conscience clause in the Civil Partnership Bill

A posting to Northern Sounds discussion page on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Northern-Sound-
FM/103513559690311#!/topic.php?uid=103513559690311&topic=136

I was listening to the local news interview with Seymour Crawford on Friday last (July 2nd) regarding his
argument for the inclusion of a conscience clause in the civil partnership bill - which I agree with. I
thought it unfair and potentially slanderous that the interviewer used the term 'Homophobic', to describe
his view. The term is now being used fallaciously by the Gay pride lobby to suggest prejudice. The lobby
are deliberately confusing language to fudge critical distinctions.
The words phobia, bias, prejudice and preference are not interchangeable. One can hold a preference
without holding a bias; a bias without holding a prejudice; a prejudice without resorting to discrimination.
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 own thinking to a dangerous and in fact irrational
degree. Homophobia on the other hand does have a rational basis which could legitimately be the subject
of a separate discussion.
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. Or does the law suggest that homosexuality be considered as an equal, viable and no less
desirable sexual outcome despite a the ratio of homo to heterosexual persons being in the order of 1:20
(5%) and despite the fact that it precludes the prospect of natural reproduction between sexual partners?
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 Travellers 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 the current legislation goes over the top, will be challenged constitutionally
and will suffer a serious setback as a consequence.
Seymour is right to request the conscience clause. It is a practical safeguard any reasonable, forward
looking, conscientious legislator would request and Seymour has done so because he is just that -
reasonable, forward looking and conscientious. The interviewer clearly offended Seymour by resorting to
basic mud-slinging simply because the speaker from GLEN had versed her on the power of the word
'Homophobic', as a an open-ended slur on anyone defending sexual values over sexual freedoms.
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?
But this is not what Deputy Crawford was addressing he was merely quietly expressing the view that
there ought to be a conscience clause in the legislation on gay civil partnerships.
Perhaps your interviewer needs a present of a dictionary.