Observation 1: Abortion Rights

In general, the Iona Institute is anti-choice. Not only do they not want abortion to be allowed when suicide ideation is a risk factor to a woman’s life, they also do not want abortion to be allowed even in cases of rape or incest. Their view is that the future person should not be “punished” for something they had no control over, as an abortion would then create two victims: the rape victim and the foetus.

The Iona Institute made a submission recently to the Committee for Health and Children with respect to the Oireachtas hearings on abortion in January, which outline their stance on abortion in the cases rape or incest. You can download the submission from the Oireachtas website.

Observation 2: Marriage Rights

The Iona Institute is in favour of traditional marriage, as it believes that the reason for marriage is to produce children, and those children would fare best in their upbringing if their biological parents were married. This idea is used to argue against same-sex marriage.

The Iona Institute consider adoption as a last resort of sorts, and are also against surrogacy and lone parenthood for similar reasons: it goes against their traditional and conservative view of what should be a family.

The Question

I have no doubt that the Iona Institute have conviction in their beliefs on both of these matters, but I’m not sure that they consider them to be conflicting in some circumstances.

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, does the Iona Institute believe that the woman and the rapist should marry to form the traditionalist family unit to cater for the child’s upbringing, or does the Iona Institute believe that a woman in this case should be allowed to abort the pregnancy?

This question is, of course, loaded. But the absurdity is there to make a point: Iona’s positions on certain matters are conflicting, and the only way to resolve those conflicts is to introduce “well that would be a special case” clauses in their points. However, in doing so, the Institute would thereby undermine and contradict their own opinions if they effectively said “yes, abortion after rape is acceptable” or “it’s okay to have a non-traditional family”.

The Iona Institute’s regressive thinking on important social and personal matters does not do this country any service. While they have every right to speak about issues, they twist reality and facts in such a way that their views appear perfectly acceptable to those who haven’t really formed an opinion. The spreading of misinformation and ignorance of reality by the conservative right is unhelpful when Ireland simply wants to move forward and provide loving and safe equality for all.

Well, I have, unfortunately. When I read some of the comments made by people against abortion I sometimes fear that they’ll have a brain aneurysm or that they’re frothing wildly at the mouth out of sheer faux-outrage. I’m almost embarrassed for them!

So I’ve decided to collect a few one-liner quotes from anti-choicers to try to give you a sense of just how ludicrous their arguments have become recently, and hopefully you’ll get the same sense of what-the-absolute-fuck-is-going-on that I do. I’ll try to keep adding more as I find them, but please feel free to let me know if you come across any more gems: add them to the comments, or email me or tweet me.

Enjoy!

isen’t it a good job or we would be out murdering one another every dayand we wouldent even have to to Europe.

So you’re right, women don’t get equitable treatment in those issues. They get better treatment

incest is, by definition, consensual

In Florida it is illegal to kill a baby tortoise – yet in Ireland Fine Gael are going to legalise the killing of human babies.

Ill make a simple point! A husband gets his wife pregnant! The decision whether or not to abort that baby is not entirely hers!

And if you are a woman and don’t want one, don’t get pregnant I suppose. Equally simple.

And if you’re against slavery, don’t buy one

O’ misinformation and unthruth awlys coming from the baby murders yes

Yes Katie Does everything including muder is OK With you so long as your sort of WOMEN has her rights?

We have laws that protect the life of women (clearly a bit muddy now but hopefully that’ll be sorted soon) and that of the unborn.

should we legalise drugs because some Irish people go over to Amsterdam and get high, despite our laws?

Much better to frame it as a sexism or anti-catholic issue rather than talk about terminating healthy pregnancies. I’ll tell you how much I like women- I don’t want any of them killed before they’re born.

Usual people bringing the religious argument into it. I love how they’re always the atheists though.

Common sense- why is it always the pro-abortionists who bring up religion? Obsessed by the priests ye are.

I think it shows us that people tend to follow what’s cool rather than morrally right. I’ll say a prayer for you: Saint Michael the Archangel, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray. [...]

What I meant to say is that your posts read like the lunch menu card on the bedside in a lobotomy hospital. That better?

We, and by that I mean the thousands who want otherwise who were demonstrating in Dublin, will not accept suicidal ideation as grounds for an abortion. It behoves our politicians to listen and act, by giving a clear, unambiguous, choice to the people in this regard.

FG has no mandate to introduce, for the first time, abortion into this country. The least they could do is get a clear mandate, one way or the other.

The crowed that collected in Dublin was the largest protest Dublin has seen for some time, and we hope the politicians have taken note.

@flyingteacosy @mollydot You're pro-abortion. Pro-murder. Pro-death.

— Maria Laoise (@MariaLaoise) May 2, 2013

@mollydot @marialaoise @flyingteacosy rape + murder = pro-choice

— Desiree E Moore (@Desireeemoore) May 3, 2013

 

Of course, this is a ridiculous link to make. And while abortion opponents continue to throw around this trial as if it somehow supports their opinions, they seem to forget (or willfully ignore) the fact that women went to Gosnell to seek abortions because of their “pro-life” campaigning.It’s known that unsafe and illegal abortions occur more regularly in countries where abortion is illegal, and in countries where it is legal, protests take place regularly outside medical centres and clinics where the procedure is performed.

While called “sidewalk counselling” by protesters, the real aim of such protests is to stop women having an abortion, by harassing them and guilting them. Protesters pressure women into changing their minds and leaving the clinic often by sheer numbers, but also by displaying disturbing pictures of abortions. It must be noted though, that protesters show images of late-term abortions to try to shock women, instead of showing images of early-term, medical abortions, which is the most common type of abortion. There are plenty of photos of protests using these images on the Internet, but I won’t link any here.

Protesters at the recent opening of the Marie Stopes Clinic in Belfast

So, what does all this have to do with Gosnell, I hear you ask?

Well, thanks to ongoing protests such as this, as well as numerous violent attacks on doctors and staff – some of whom were murdered by anti-choice protesters – clinics all over the United States were forced to close. Clinics like this not only provide abortion services, they also provide contraception and family-planning advice to women. By forcing clinics to close, anti-choicers were, in fact, denying women and couples to contraception in the first place.

Why do women in America opt for abortion? One of the biggest factors is economics: they cannot afford to raise a child. While raising a child might not be a problem for a family with money, women on low-incomes are not only unable to raise a child, they can not use federal money to get an abortion, thanks to the Hyde Amendment. Therefore, they must use their own limited money, and often have to opt for the cheapest provider they can find.

If you’re a pregnant woman living in an area where anti-choice protests are shutting down clinics, where anti-choice amendments force you to find a cheap abortion provider, you don’t have many options.

Can you guess what affordable and accessible abortion provider fitted the bill in Philadelphia? That’s right: Kermit Gosnell.

Through a variety of actions over the years, including forcing 9 out of 22 safe and legal abortion clinics to close in Pennsylvania in the last two years alone, forced women to visit a house of horrors where people were murdered. How many other dangerous providers are operating out there, killing women and infants, thanks to the activities of so-called “pro-life” activists?

Abortions, whether legal or illegal, safe or unsafe, have always taken place and will continue to take place. What’s important is that we must now stop forcing women to take unsafe abortion pills or visit dangerous backstreet providers so that their lives are not at risk. We have to stop forcing women to gather thousands of euro at very short notice to fly to the UK to get the medical care they need.

The only way to stop the likes of Gosnell, and to stop women dying unnecessarily, is to legalise abortion.

I am angry because draft legislation for the X Case created by Fine Gael’s Minister for Health, James Reilly, states that a suicidal pregnant woman must be seen by six consultants before she can have an abortion.

This not only shows just how this country treats women and how much it trusts them to take care of their own health, it speaks volumes about how mental health is viewed and reinforces the stigma. As Labour TD Ciara Conway said on RTE Radio One this afternoon, women who need an abortion would be “put on trial” if this legislation were to be passed.

It’s shameful, it’s embarrassing, and it’s sickening.Just as the government looked as if it was finally making headway with regards to abortion legislation after 21 years, it’s clear that some of our legislators (like James Reilly, who drew up the draft bill) are going out of their way to ensure that we make one step forward, but two back.

Forcing women to plead their case to a panel of two obstetricians and four psychiatrists is a completely unworkable process. Even with the low number of psychiatrists in the country (Ireland has three perinatal psychiatrists) how does Minister Reilly expect to find such a panel at short notice? It took me two months to get an appointment with a psychiatrist for, thankfully, a relatively minor complaint and that was a tough enough wait: how can suicidal woman be expected to wait that long when a major factor in their illness is growing inside them?

Why, also, must there be six consultants involved? For any other medical issue, you would meet with one specialist, then others if you needed to. Not six. Just one. Does Minister Reilly believe that six consultants are needed to diagnose severe depression and suicidality? The condition can be diagnosed by one psychiatrist in any other case and it should be no different for a pregnant woman; there is no need for a “jury” of four psychiatrist and two obstetricians.

This attitude to mental health and well-being only promotes and reinforces the massive stigma that still exists in Ireland; the stigma that shames people for being unwell and prevents them opening up to talk about their feelings.

This attitude is dangerous. If a woman is suicidal she will already be emotionally and mentally fraught: does the Minister and Fine Gael really think that she will have the energy to “prove” she’s suicidal to a panel of six people? Does the Minister and Fine Gael really think it’s humane to treat a fellow human being in such a manner?

What conclusions can I take from Minister Reilly’s disgraceful proposition that we need six consultants? It really seems like he using the stigma attached to mental health to try to dodge effective abortion legislation.

Clearly, he does not trust women to make their own choices or to understand their own personal health status, and so must force them to face trial in front of six other people. It’s also evident that by proposing legislation so unworkable he hopes that no woman will actually have to meet the panel during his time in government: when a pregnant woman does eventually die from suicide, it will be another government’s problem and up to them to deal with it. He wants to pass the buck to someone else, just like successive governments have been doing for over two decades.

This is bullshit, and I’m so fucking angry.

If you’ve been following the abortion debate over the last year you’ll recognise the above as succinct summary of the oft-repeated rhetoric put forth by the anti-choice lobby. It’s easy to put it all into a few lines because when you look at it, they’re the same “arguments” repeated over and over; but once a good point is made to counter one of theirs, they simply jump to the next one, then the next, and so on, before repeating the cycle over again.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be Savita Halappanavar and sepsis: the anti-choice people could just as easily say, “Michelle Harte’s death had nothing to do with abortion law; she died because she didn’t get treatment for her cancer in time”. Indeed, any woman in Ireland today could find herself in a situation where medical treatment is denied because she is pregnant. But clearly, things are not as black and white as Youth Defence and the Pro-Life Campaign would like you to imagine. The more reasonable people among us were very sure that Savita’s death was a combination of being denied an abortion, which then resulted in the infection that took her life.

Over the last fortnight I noticed how the same old points were brought up yet again, during the inquest in Galway. Years’-worth of malformed reasoning was squashed into the space of a few days. It was rather chaotic, I suspect, because it was happening all too fast for the anti-choicers to twist and skew the facts. So fast, in fact, that the cynic in me says that many of the anti-choice lobbyists and campaigners are beginning to latch onto the Kermit Gosnell trial in the USA in an attempt to portray abortion rights supporters as supporters murder (actual murder that is, not the anti-choice movement’s pretend version of it). While supporters of the anti-choice groups often say it, I half-expect spokespersons of the groups themselves to become ever more vocal about this (they’re already posting news articles relating to the trial), with nonsense similar to that of Edel Finnegan, director of the Pro-Life Union of Greater Philadelphia, who said of Gosnell, ”What’s happening at this abortion facility, it’s happening at every abortion facility.”

After Savita died, her husband, Praveen, approached Galway Pro-Choice and the media to highlight his wife’s death as a result of being denied an abortion. While Savita was certainly talked about at numerous rallies and protests, the focus all along – even before her death – was on women’s rights. There was no “hijack” of anything.

Today on Youth Defence’s Facebook page a young person posted asking for clarification on abortion, as she thought it was okay to have an abortion if the mother’s life was in danger, but otherwise she felt abortion was murder. Youth Defence then proceeded to lie to this young and spout the usual “it’s not abortion if it’s not intended”. Of course, any pregnancy termination is an abortion, and it has nothing to do with intention.

The panic and hand-wringing continued throughout the last two weeks, building and building, with many anti-choicers on social networks arguing the exact same, tired rhetoric as they had always done. I could almost see the blinkers on them through my computer monitor as they decided to ignore the reality of what was going on.

@kevosullivan07 Huge number of problems in Galway, so far nothing to suggest lack of ab one of them. Gov continuing regardless @annraoiod

— Cora Sherlock (@CoraSherlock) April 17, 2013

@conorsthoughts @youthdefence. Brush up on biology a child in utero isn't the source of sepsis. Savita was admitted with sepsis. Daily Mail

— Marion Murphy (@Osbers) April 12, 2013

@eolappin @conorsthoughts. No the question is simple. Would you murder your own child?

— Lunarteddy (@Lunarteddy) April 9, 2013

Then today the rhetoric stopped. There was a deafening silence from the anti-choice campaigners as Dr Peter Boylan, clinical director of the National maternity Hospital, said that an early termination, if legally permissible, could have saved Savita Halappanavar. This was the statement that everybody needed to hear, but the very one that the anti-choice lobby wanted nobody to hear.

As the inquest continues, it’s becoming clear that Praveen Halappanavar’s account of those horrific few days is vindicated. It’s becoming clear that after 21 years of inaction from successive governments to legislate for the X Case, the pro-choice movement and women’s rights campaigners are vindicated.

But still, nothing has changed. Women in Ireland are still forced to travel abroad for abortion. You, the reader, or someone close to you, could be one of these women. I’m proud to be a pro-choice feminist and I urge everyone to demand that our government takes action so that Ireland may become a little less misogynistic, and a safe place for women to be pregnant.

The reality is that the voting was not representative of the medical community, and therefore the results of the votes don’t really matter. Here’s why.The three motions proposed by Dr Mary Favier were:

38. This meeting calls on the IMO to support regulation in relation to the provision of abortion services where there is a “real and substantial risk” to the life of the mother.

39. The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for women who become pregnant as a result of a criminal act that they would be allowed access to legal termination within Ireland.

40. The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for the provision of abortion services for women who are pregnant with non-viable fetal anomalies who choose to proceed with an abortion.

The first motion (motion 38) dealt with legislation for the X Case, and was defeated by 42 to 32. I’m looking for the results of the other two motions (get in touch if you know what they were!), but as they were defeated also, it’s probably fair to say that they had similar results.

First of all, motion 38 is already outlined in the Irish Medical Council Guidelines relating to abortion (page 21). Is it not a bit strange that doctors would vote effectively against their own guidelines?

However, as I already said, the voting was not representative of the community of doctors in Ireland. There’s no need for me to explain the difficulties in practising doctors to travel to Kerry from all over the country for a conference when it would demand several days leave from their busy profession. It makes sense to me that the attendees were doctors who were readily available to travel: doctors from the locality, and retired doctors. Of course, I could be wrong on that.

So anyway, all we know from this meeting is that 42 doctors are against abortion. How many doctors are there in this country? Over 18,000.

Not counting abstentions, if 74 people voted, they make up only 0.4% of the doctors in Ireland. 0.2% of doctors are therefore definitely against abortion. In reality, this number will be higher, but the point is that a defeated motion by 42 doctors is not the victory that certain anti-choice groups make it out to be.

You can be sure, though, that such people will conveniently blinker themselves and ignore these facts, congratulate themselves on an imaginary “victory”, all in an ongoing effort to try to deny women the humane healthcare they need.

• Every society has an interest in encouraging mothers and fathers to raise their own children together

Yes, to an extent. But this point is “parent-centric”, in contrast to Iona’s supposed “child-centric” view of marriage (see below). Society accepts that sometimes mothers and fathers are, for whatever reasons, unable to raise their children together: separation, drastic change of circumstances, divorce, death, absent parent, etc. Because of this, society allows for fostering and adoption of children, as well as welfare options for parent(s) who need it, to ensure that the child in question has the best possible chance of having a full and positive childhood.

The issue of raising children is misplaced in and separate to this discussion, and I feel that the Iona Institute are using it as a strawman argument to the real issue. But, in their document, Iona continue with the “raising kids” fallacy:

• Every society in history has developed the institution of marriage mainly for that purpose

This is a bit nonsensical. If marriage exists just to allow people to procreate, then what about all the families with unmarried parents? Or what about the marriages where the couple do not wish to have children?

If you go to a wedding, you will find that the ceremony is about love and dedication of the people involved to each other. People who are in love get married. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with having children or not. Therefore, this second point from Iona is moot, as anyone who has ever been to a wedding can see.

• It is this child-centred view of marriage which is enshrined in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

This isn’t correct. Here is Article 16 of the Declaration:

16(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
16(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
16(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

As you can see, Article 16 does not say anything about a “child-centred view of marriage”.  It says that people are entitled to have a family, and that such families are to be protected. It does not say – as Iona seem to be suggesting – that all families must have opposite-sex parents. It also does not say that only people of different sexes can get married.

This is somewhat of an aside, but earlier this year, the European Court of Human Rights found that in the case of X and Others vs Austria, Austria was in violation of Articles 14 and 8 in the European Convention of Human Rights (be careful not to confuse this with UDHR). The Court found that it was discriminatory to prevent one person in an unmarried same-sex couple to adopt the biological child of the other person in the relationship, while it was perfectly acceptable for opposite-sex couples to do so.

Again, Iona are trying to use a “won’t someone think of the children?” argument to try to raise emotions, and to try to garner support for their views on marriage, which is a separate topic and should be treated as such.

• Abundant research shows that the family based on the marriage of a child’s biological mother and father generally produces the best outcomes for children (See note below)

And yet again, the Iona Institute willfully ignores the fact that marriage is about love and companionship between two people, and not about raising children. But let’s take a look at this “abundant research” in the note they mention:

Note: ‘Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low conflict marriage’ – Marriage from a Child’s Perspective

That’s it. A single sentence. That is not abundant research. However, what real abundant research shows is that there is no difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples when it comes to raising children. I wrote about this research in a recent post, Are Gay Parents Bad Parents?

• Changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples logically leads us to say that being raised by their own mother and father does not matter to children or society

You may need to read that point a few times to get past the grammatical car-crash, but in essence it says that children don’t care if they’re raised by their biological parents. I think that is very insulting, as it completely undermines the loving relationships people have built with adoptive parents, and trivialises the complex nature of different family structures. Of course it matters to children how they are raised, but again, it has nothing to do with marriage.

• It is not discrimination to treat something that is unique in a unique way, and marriage as currently defined is uniquely pro-child

I’d like to see this definition of marriage and where it’s pro-child. As I said, people can have children outside of marriage, or be married and have no children. As marriage is about two people in love, it is discrimination to treat their love differently just because of their sex.

This reeks of the attitude perpetrated by the likes of Susan Phillips (who calls same-sex relationships “friendships” and demands that they use another word instead of “marriage”) where some people seem to be annoyed that gay people are being treated the same as straight people.

• While it is obviously true that not all married couples have children, nonetheless it is equally true that every child has a mother and father

So? This is a point that adds nothing to Iona’s views. Obviously people have a mother and father, that’s common sense.

The document ends with the loaded question:

Should we have an institution which encourages fathers and mothers to raise their children together?

I’ll leave you, the reader, to figure out why things are much more complicated than this.

That’s the end of it. What do I make of this document about marriage produced by the Iona Institute? Well, it actually talks about raising children much more than than marriage. It’s also populated with moot points that don’t add anything to the conversation. This literature is a very thinly-veiled attempt at undermining marriage and people’s love, and it seeks to do so by dragging in the issue of child-raising as if it somehow supports the anti-same-sex marriage stance the Iona Institute have.

I’d love it if Iona were actually honest with their points and gave some real reasons as to why they oppose same-sex marriage. But I have a good feeling I know why they don’t: the Iona Institute is a group in support of religion, and all these views on marriage echo the stances put forward by the Catholic Church. I’d have much more respect if the group said as much in their literature, instead of trying to hide the religious reasons as to why they believe gay people are second-class citizens.

On the Iona website I navigated to a section called ‘Marriage and the Family’ and there I found a document that was published prior to the Children’s Referendum last year. The document is called ‘Child Abuse by Family Structure’ and, considering child abuse is a serious issue, I decided that it was as good a place as any to start.

The document states that a child in a family structure with married, biological parents experiences less abuse of various forms than other family situations (unmarried parents, single parents, single parents living with a partner, and so on), and the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) Report to Congress is quoted as its source.

Everything appeared to be mostly in order. Except, things are not quite as straightforward as Iona would make them out to be. Firstly, the group has used an American report, and applied its findings to Ireland. Thankfully, much more research than the NIS-4 report has been undertaken across several countries, and it looks like the reality of same-sex parenting is rather different to the image that the Iona Institute wish to put across.

While the Iona document (and the NIS-4) suggests that unmarried parents, adoptive parents, single parents abuse children more, I want to address the implication that gay parents are more abusive than their straight, married, and biological counterparts are.

In 2010 Nanette, Bos, and Goldberg published results relating to the relationships between adolescents and their lesbian parents, as part of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS):

A key finding in the current study was that none of the NLLFS adolescents reported physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver. This finding contradicts the notion, offered in opposition to parenting by gay and lesbian people, that same-sex parents are likely to abuse their offspring sexually.

It turns out that the capability of gay people to be parents and its effect on their children is actually well-studied. A host of scientific research undertaken in Canada, the USA, and Australia has shown that same-sex couples are no less able to care for children that opposite-sex couples. In American Psychology, Herek (2006) states:

If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. [...] the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.

Going back to the Iona Institutes document on child abuse for a moment, the second page states in big red writing that “By far and away the safest place for a child is in a home raised by their married, biological parents. Therefore, we should promote marriage for the sake of children.”

I will assume, then, that the Iona Institute is also against parentless children being adopted by a loving adult or couple who will take care of them. I will also assume that Iona feels that to stop extant child abuse occurring in the home at the hand of anyone who isn’t a straight, married, biological parent, the abuser(s) should just get married.

I will have to read through Iona’s other literature on marriage to find out what else they say, but certainly in the case of child abuse and gay parenting, they are presenting misinformation and flawed research in a (maybe not so) subtle attempt to undermine the concept of same-sex marriage and show it in a bad light.

Same-sex marriage in Ireland is a growing discussion (not one that needs to be had, if you ask me; two adults in love should be able to marry, regardless of gender or sexual orientation) and one in which ridiculous and uninformed claims will be made. It’s important to be able to separate the real issues from the nonsense, and to recognise that some groups opposing same-sex marriage will do so quite possibly for different motives than they appear to say.

There are loads of things to write about how illogical such statements are, and I expect to write more about such “persecution”. But today I’d like to focus on something else: who owns marriage?

In The Daily Mail, Dr Carey wrote, “The danger I believe that the Government is courting with its approach both to marriage and religious freedom, is the alienation of a large minority of people who only a few years ago would have been considered pillars of society.”

Religious freedom. Is Carey saying that those who do not believe in the Christian traditions of marriage, or those who accept there are many other belief systems surrounding it, are oppressing Christians and preventing them from exercising their religious freedom? If that’s what he’s saying, then maybe he also feels that the presence of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and all other non-Christians in the United Kingdom is somehow an affront to his religious freedom and are oppressors of his beliefs.

Dr Carey is using the phrase “religious freedom” as though it were a carte blanche to accuse the government of oppression. But not liking Christian stances of marriage is as “oppressive” as not liking gangster rap music is “racist”.

On the BBC News report someone (maybe Dr Carey himself) said that marriage was around since Creation, and that it was affirmed by Jesus Christ himself. This is the point I am making: that for some reason, Christians are claiming ownership of the concept of marriage, as if it was only invented 2,000 years ago, or whenever the Christian God created the world.

Immediately, I was reminded of a post I saw on Buzzfeed earlier this week, where 20 young people were asked their opinion on marriage.

The irony of a Christian writing “YOLO” on this is not lost on me.

You’ll see on that article that the vast majority of people say that marriage between two people of the same sex should not be allowed because of some reason to do with God.

What these young people and what Dr Carey seem to forget is that marriage was around longer than the Bible or the concept of an Old or New Testament God. Much longer. In fact, maybe up to four million years before the Bible was even compiled (Ash & Robinson, 2010). Certainly, about 20 millenia ago, humans were practicing monogamy.

Clearly, marriage has been around for much longer than Christendom, and it’s safe to say that Christianity cannot claim any ownership or monopoly over the concept of marriage. But believe it or not, the Catholic Church also performed marriage rites for same-sex couples in the past. John Boswell wrote in 1994 (Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe) about this practice, and it was outlined in a book by other authors on the topic which you can read online.

Boswell found that same-sex Christian unions took place in 13th Century Greece, 14th Century Slovakia, and even the Byzantine emperor Basil I appears to have married his companion John in the 9th Century. He found records of a Christian marriage between two women that took place in Croatia in the 18th Century.

The fact is that two gay people getting married is not oppression of Christian faith, simply because Christians don’t believe in it. If that was the case, then Muslims in the UK would be up in arms because Christians are oppressing their right to have more than one wife at a time (Islam allows up to four). Marriage between people – any two people – is not an affront to religious freedom. The concept of marriage is not owned by any faith or religion, and if and when religion comes into the ceremony of marriage, it must only be a matter for the people getting married, and nobody else.

People of one faith have absolutely no right to force their opinions or beliefs on those of another or to claim that their right to religious freedom is being threatened because the others are doing something different. Why? Because oppression works both ways.

• Reference: Ash P, Robinson D (2010) The emergence of humans: an exploration of the evolutionary timeline. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Hoboken, NJ

Many of you will have picked up today’s Sunday Independent and read the front-page article describing Michelle Mulherin TD’s outrage at a website giving advice to teenagers and young adults about sexual relationships. The advice in question dealt with threesomes and relationships involving more that two people. You can read the article at SpunOut.ie (which is an excellent website that helps young adults deal with the various issues that arise during growing up).

Now, I’m not sure what aspect of this has Mulherin flapping about. Is she shocked that teenagers in Ireland actually have sex? Or that some people in the country actually partake in sex with multiple partners? Or that a website funded by the HSE gives advice – on the physical and emotional aspects of such relationships – to people who might actually be looking for such guidance? Maybe Ms Mulherin would prefer if people delved into sex acts without informing themselves of the health, relationship, and emotional issues surrounding them.

The simple fact is that younger people have sex, and just like their older counterparts, some of these people have sex with multiple partners at once. This is a fact. It happens. As I’m sure all of you will agree, it is of the utmost importance that people – young or old – having sex should be aware of the various aspects surrounding sex, whether it’s physical (consent, contraception, the human body, etc.) or emotional (love, happiness, sadness, jealousy, etc.).

It makes sense to me that such information and advice be given via a website: young people constantly use the Internet for their day-to-day lives, and the Internet is full of advice and tips on almost everything you would want to know, from making pancakes to finding the meaning of life, and everything in between.

What alternative should we put in place if SpunOut.ie was not available to young people? Should we export the problem – as Ireland is very adept at doing – and get them to visit health websites based in the UK or elsewhere? Or should we just let teenagers trawl through the dregs of the Internet and let them learn about sex from pornography websites?

Michelle Mulherin states: ”There is nothing right about this. I will be raising the issue with Minister for Health James Reilly as to why he is putting taxpayers’ money towards [SpunOut.ie]. It is totally inappropriate. It goes against the common good which is what the Government should be trying to achieve in society.”

Why is Mulherin so against using tax money, via the HSE, to educate younger people on sexual relationships and awareness? To me, this is exactly what tax money should be spent on. She also believes that it’s inappropriate and goes against “the common good”. Well, pardon me, but I don’t see how what people do in their bedrooms has anything to do with society or the common good. It appears that Mulherin is advocating that the Government should be doing what it can to prevent sexual empowerment, to stop people engaging in certain relationships, and to censor the very advice and guidance that responsible people are trying to seek in order to have healthy relationships.

With the publication of the piece in today’s Sunday Independent, SpunOut.ie have released a statement defending – and rightfully so – their work and the article in question. You can read ‘Arm Young People With Facts, Not Fear’ here.

The statement hits the nail on the head in saying:

“An adult’s discomfort does not negate a young person’s right to information. Silence does not breed confidence, instead it creates fear and confusion. We should arm our young people with the facts and trust them to make responsible decisions.”

Michelle Mulherin is so uncomfortable with the idea that young people have sex, that she would rather silence the proper information and pretend that such things do not happen in Ireland. This mentality has pervaded Irish society throughout the years, and is why we are still extremely immature towards a whole host of real-life issues regarding sex and relationships.

What would people rather? That young adults get proper guidance and facts about the realities of sexual relationships, or that they obtain misinformation (an potentially damaging information) about sex from dodgy porn sites?

Well done to SpunOut.ie for addressing what is a real situation for many people, unlike those who would rather no such advice was ever given, preferring to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that such sexual relationships don’t happen in Ireland.

Ms Mulherin, you need to open your eyes to modern Ireland and the realities of its citizens’ personal lives. You need to stop trying to control vital information to young people in their formative years, and instead promote a society that can pride itself on strong sexual health and awareness.