Geoff's Shorts

Screenshot of fluoride content of San Pellegrino, 0.6 parts per million.

Fighting against a cheap and effective healthcare strategy is thirsty work. What better way to relax than by pouring yourself a nice tall glass of fluoridated water?

Not from the tap, of course. For these special occasions you should turn to San Pellegrino. Crisp, refreshing, and served in an iconic tinted glass bottle, you'll be relieved to hear that it contains 0.6 parts per million fluoride. Sit back, take a well earned break from opposing the 0.7 parts per million fluoride in Irish tap water, and enjoy the one part in ten million difference.

Don't let your hard work claiming that fluoride causes everything from man flu to the black death prevent you from drinking the stuff. In fact, if you've claimed that fluoride causes depression, and claim that you cured your own severe depression by eliminating fluoride, you should probably drink even more fluoridated water.

What better way to toy with people's genuine mental health issues than to encourage them to cease medication in favour of an evidence-free crackpot scheme that you won't even follow yourself?

This I feel must be the logic of Aisling FitzGibbon, aka The Girl Against Fluoride, a highly qualified angel healer, proponent of 'curing' autism rectally, and adviser to Sinn Fein on matters of public health. Pictured to the left we see a screenshot of her ink361 page, proudly displaying a book of grain, lactose and refined sugar free recipes alongside her San Pellegrino.

Next we see writer, restaurant critic and Michelin star winner Paolo Tullio. Thankfully he has not offered to manipulate angel healing rays on our behalf, but he has issued a video saying he believes fluoridation may be dangerous. He then calls on the Irish government to end the practice. His primary reasoning seems to be that his home tap water smells of chlorine.

Fearing that fluoride is dangerous, and opposing the government's fluoridation programme, is it safe to assume he avoids parting with coin for high fluoride San Pellegrino?

Let us read some of his reviews:

"Although a bottle of still water was on the house, both Rocco and I wanted sparkling, so we added a bottle of San Pellegrino to our drinks order." - Paolo Tullio at La Dolce Vita, Dublin 18

"Two bottles of San Pellegrino and a bottle of Peroni beer completed our order." - Paolo Tullio: Oliveto The Pavillion Complex, Dun Laoghaire

"There were a few wines under €30, but the bulk of the list falls into the €35 to €55 range. I chose a decent Pinot Grigio, which was listed at €33. We also had two large bottles of San Pellegrino at €5 each." - The Exchange Restaurant

I tweeted Tullio on the topic and he was kind enough to reply. He seems a decent sort, but rather confused on the area - he thought Ireland was the only country in the world to fluoridate, compared the chlorination of water to drinking bleach, and said he boiled Italian tap water because of the smell of chlorine. He has accomplishments in many fields, I just don't reckon science is one of them.

So why include him on this rather short list? Well, if opponents of water fluoridation have no problem with drinking fluoridated water, maybe we should wonder if their claims are worth entertaining.

This week Ireland's bishops spoke with one voice on marriage equality, describing it as a 'grave injustice'. Strong words, and I found myself wondering if such forceful language had been deployed by these unmarried men before.

(tw: child rape, imprisonment, slavery, theft, sale, and deaths of children.)

I thought it would be useful to examine statements surrounding Ferns, where for decades members of the clergy raped and sexually assaulted at least a hundred children. It seemed apt: the bishops are doubtless aware of the particulars as two of their members (Herlihy, Comiskey) expended considerable effort ensuring the rapists and sex offenders did not trouble the attention of the authorities.

What phrase best describes this calculated concealment of depravity? Bishop Brennan's official statement chooses to condemn the affair as 'failings'.

I've done some amateurish tinkering around the edges of Theology and accept that the depth of the hierarchy's moral expertise may be shrouded from me by their years of study, but it seems to me that a failing is considerably less serious than a minor injustice, let alone a grave injustice. They must fear marriage equality greatly if they choose such words.

Next I sought out official statement on the Magdalene laundries. This business scheme consisted of religious orders imprisoning tens of thousands of women and girls as a source of slave labour, using violence, head shaving and psychological abuse to maintain control. The operation wrapped up in 1996. Paying the survivors their due wages and pensions seems to me a just step, but again I lack the moral expertise that is endowed to members of the Catholic hierarchy. They're not paying.

How, I wondered, did this mass enslavement for base coin rank alongside allowing two men or two women in love to make a solemn commitment to devote themselves to each other for the rest of their lives?

It seems unlikely that the bishops have not heard of the matter, and yet the closest I can find to a comment is Bishop Eamonn Walsh rushing to announce that other parties should share responsibility. He adds that "[the] religious won't be found wanting". (They have yet to apologise, or contribute to compensation funds, so one presumes the emphasis is on 'found'.)

Seeking a fourth point of comparison for this attempt to reverse engineer morality according to bishops, I turned to Ireland's mother and baby homes. It was here that pregnant women and girls were imprisoned by religious orders, usually for three years, and forced to manual labour while their children were sold or reallocated to parents deemed more desirable.Surely, given the bishop's now obsequious concern for the family, they are apoplectic in their condemnation?

We have a statement, of sorts, a shrewdly crafted piece of wordsmithery that acknowledges pain without seeing wrongdoing before launching into the sort of rapid distancing that normally requires rockets. It mentions only disquiet at the hundreds of children who died, sparing no words for the families destroyed. You can read it in full before reading Bock the Robber's dissection.

My personal highlight?

"Many of these young vulnerable women would already have been rejected by their families." - Michael Neary

Here the bishop forgets that it was precisely the instructions of his predecessors that caused this rejection. It's a neat trick, perhaps illustrative of the talents one must acquire to hold such high office.

But I digress. We have enough information to form a rudimentary scale of moral evils, as seen by the moral experts that make up the nation's bishops. To start our scale we have the nationwide enslavement of an estimated 30,000 women and girls. We see primacy given to sharing blame. There is no apology or compensation. It seems my moral betters leave me with little option but to regard this as trivial.

Next with a banal repetitiveness we see widespread enslavement of women. But this time in addition to manual labour their children are stolen, sold, reallocated, or die in the harsh environment of the mother and baby homes. This ranks more seriously: we have an acknowledgement of pain and a wriggling attempt to blame society, all the while omitting the fact that the hierarchy's control of society at the time was absolute. There is a strong attempt to blame a subdivision of the organisation. Naturally the hundreds of unmarked graves do not earn the epithet 'grave injustice'. That is reserved for the offence of recognising the loving commitment of two of my fellow citizens.

Does the protection and coverup of 21 child rapists in Ferns count as a serious crime? It seems to rank lower, unless the learned bishops ascribe a meaning to 'failings' that is unknown to us commoners. And yet failings seems to be the highest condemnation we've reached. The leap from here to an injustice of any sort, let alone a grave one, seems insurmountable.

Language does not lend itself to a points system and I cannot assign numeric values to how much worse the bishops must view marriage equality when compared to enslavement, child rape, perversion of justice and violence against women and girls. But it is clear that they consider it the greatest of these four evils.

Disagree [with bishops], there is nothing wrong with homosexuality: 61%. Agree, it's immoral: 18%. 21% neither agree nor disagree.

Bishops claim moral expertise but they have spent the past century painting their profound moral incompetence on a canvas of broken lives. It is unsurprising that only 18% of Irish Catholics agree with their stance on homosexuality. I see no reason why their stance on marriage equality will find its reception any warmer.

If you live in Ireland you probably know some Catholics. You might have gone to school with them. They could be your colleagues, your doctor, or the person who bags your groceries. But what most of us don't realise is that there is a small splinter group who are quite different indeed.

Styling themselves 'The Hierarchy', this self-appointed group of elites eschew secular dress in favour of ornate robes, jewellery, and improbably large hats. Unlike most Catholics who happily integrate into wider society, they prefer to live in secluded palaces. Women have been barred from entry since the inception of the group in the first century BC. They do not marry or (usually) father children, instead replenishing their ranks by recruiting Catholic priests who share their conservative world views.

If you follow the media, you'll see that this group of 26 Catholics (henceforth referred to by their preferred term of 'bishops') recently issued a statement opposing access to civil marriage for same sex couples.

"A same sex couple cannot be husband and wife", reads the statement in part, showing a keen understanding of the issue under debate.

Much of their opposition to civil marriage rights stems from their own religious beliefs. Despite the Bible containing not one word attempting to regulate non Christian or non Jewish marriages, they are of the opinion that Jesus would be particularly irked by two men or two women forming a solemn commitment to each other.

"The Book of Genesis shows us that man and woman are created in the image and likeness of God; they recognise that they are made for each other" write the roughly two dozen men who have chosen for themselves a life of bachelordom.

"Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" continues the statement, issued by a group that not only objects to their own members getting married, but also bars Catholic priests from marriage and married men from priesthood.

It is worth noting that the majority of Irish Catholics support marriage rights for priests and that this statement should not be read as indicative of mainstream Irish Catholic thought.

Much of the document focuses on what the exclusively male and childless group consider to be the "mutual and complimentary" role of women, a role they deem essential for its unique input and insight yet also seek to bar from priesthood. Despite running to sixteen pages the document does not devote space to elaborating what, precisely, this complimentary role entails. The reader is left to examine past bishop statements for indications, like this one from Bishop Kevin Dolan which opposes cancer treatment for women.

Again, it is worth noting that the majority of Irish Catholics do not oppose cancer treatment for women.

Another theme pervading the document is a concern for children.Others in the Catholic community have expressed delight at this newfound interest, the bishops being perhaps most famous for a decades long project to conceal and protect child rapists. It is hoped by many that this desire to see children flourish will continue beyond this moment convenient to fighting back against LGBTQ rights.

"... the Catholic Church clearly teaches that people who are homosexual must always be treated with sensitivity, compassion and respect." continues the statement from a group that considers homosexuals ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil and unfit for priesthood.

We took to the streets to ask ordinary Irish Catholics if these 26 men are representative of their beliefs.

"At this rate in 20 years' time there'll be no priests left in Ireland. But that lot are still blocking married priests and women priests. And now they're saying being married is the natural way of things and women have an essential complimentary role? Give me a break. Maybe if they spent less time sticking their noses into other people's marriages they'd be able to find some time to do something about the fact we're running out of priests to celebrate Catholic marriage." - Thomas Kavanagh, who does not possess a hat greater in height than six inches.

"They bishops don't want women's opinions, so I don't see why I should want a bishop's opinion. I'm voting yes." said Sinead McGillicuddy, who went on to clarify that she does not live in a palace.

"I'm voting no, but I made my own mind up on it. I don't like that lot telling me what to do." opined Kieran McGuinness, championing independent thought.

"I've never really liked the gays", he added.

Shortly after issuing their statement public support for marriage equality reached a record 81%.

I'm unclear if those opposed to marriage equality have started their campaign yet. It's hard to tell: we had a statement from bishops, of course, but the slice of the population that turns to them for moral guidance dwindled long ago. Indeed if anything support for marriage equality jumped after they launched their sixteen page document. I wrote about it, twice, but expected a more comprehensive front to emerge.

I had hopes for the cumbersomely named "Defend Marriage in Ireland: Husband And Wife" group. From what I can tell they're the Facebook account of Manif Pour Tous Ireland, and, while they have only 358 followers at present, I can confidently say that up to 13% of their followers actually hail from Hibernia. Perhaps this will grow. They're fairly good at facilitating different opinions in their Facebook discussions so it's worth popping over. Do say hi if time allows.

This post seemed a mite odd. It claims that the cost of legislating for marriage equality in the UK was 1.5 billion GBP. The only citation given was a Facebook post by a small, anonymous account so I don't give it much weight, but as part of my counterargument I stole from the King of Iona's playbook and listed some major Irish employers who list marriage equality as something they value.

Now, of course no-one's marriage should have to be justified in terms of economic benefit. I put the below quotes together in case you know someone on the fence about voting yes. If they consider the protection of Irish jobs a compelling reason to pass the referendum then their vote still counts. As the discussion was around non Irish multinationals operating in Ireland I've limited myself to that subset. I've also focused exclusively on the top 100 employers in Ireland, as measured by number of employees. This is mainly due to time constraints; I might revisit the list later. Finally I only include companies that have actively campaigned for or taken legal action in favour of marriage equality. Employee headcounts taken from Irish Times's rather useful www.top1000.ie.

Without further ado:

Intel Ireland: 4,700 Irish jobs. Intel has openly supported and campaigned for marriage equality since 2012.

Citibank: 4,269 jobs. Citi joined in a brief to bring about the repeal of the Defence of Marriage act which barred same sex marriage. Their statement read in part: "As a signatory to the amicus brief in support of Edith Windsor and the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act, Citi welcomes today's ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. Citi promotes a work environment where diversity is embraced and where our differences are valued and respected.""

HP: 4,000 jobs. HP also campaigned to have the Defence of Marriage act repealed. I quite liked their CEO's reasoning: "Marriage is the fundamental institution that unites a society. It is the single greatest contributor to the well-being of adults and children because it promotes eternal principles like commitment, fidelity and stability. It makes no difference whether the marriage is between a man and woman or a woman and woman."

Apple: 4,000 jobs. Another campaigner against the Defence of Marriage act. "…we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights— including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8."

Pfizer: 3,200 jobs. Signed an amicus brief supporting same gender marriage. The brief reads in part: "We are hampered in our efforts to recruit and retain the most talented workforce possible, placing us at a competitive disadvantage. Our success depends upon the welfare and morale of all employees, without distinction... We recognize the importance of that equality to our employees, and we have seen the real world, positive impact that fostering diversity and inclusion has on our productivity andperformance, just as we have seen the harm that denial of equality causes our businesses."

IBM: 3,000 jobs. Over 18 years ago IBM decided to partially circumvent the ban on same sex marriage by treating employees in long term same sex relationships as spouses for health insurance and other benefits.

EMC: 2,800 jobs. Lobbied in support of Referendum 74, a bill to legalise same sex marriage in Washington state. Their statement read in part: "Creating an inclusive, respectful and open culture at EMC has always been a priority, and we constantly strive to promote equality in our workplace. Our support of the state’s legislation that provides same-sex couples with the right to civil marriage is another example of our commitment to supporting – and delivering – benefits for domestic partners."

Google: 2,288 jobs. Campaigned against Proposition 8, intended to make same sex marriage illegal: "…we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 - we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love." Sergey Brin, co-founder, Google

For those counting, the total is 24,257 jobs. I'd like to thank the King of Iona for allowing me to build on his idea. Do read his post for some other Irish employers outside the top 100. If I've missed any pro marriage equality employers I apologise and am happy to amend.

So what is the price of love? If you trust tiny anonymous Facebook accounts it's hundreds of millions. But if you'd rather listen to some of the top international employers in Ireland, legislating for love is just good business sense.

I've often wondered what sort of folks oppose childhood vaccination. It's hard to find empathy with those who would sacrifice children's health - indeed children's very lives - on the altar of their sincerely held beliefs. You might recall a previous blog post discussed Family and Life's ventures in this area. They use their charitable tax status to spread misinformation about the HSE's MMR programme.

Today I learned that their access to high quality printing has borne fruit outside the field of encouraging childhood illnesses and restricting healthcare for Irish women and trans men. As they spread, they have mutated and focus now on restricting access to civil marriage.

Paul Bowler made the well intentioned decision to share the pamphlet on Twitter. Do follow him, even though he appears to tweet pictures while in control of a moving vehicle. You can also use the opportunity to read the text of Family and Life's efforts, assuming turgid dreariness is your thing. I compliment them on their spelling. And the choice of colours is inoffensive enough. Beyond that it's an uninspired remix of the stock scaremongering re polygamy, some misrepresentation of research, and parenting scaremongering.

What's of more interest to me is their Facebook page. Over 136 thousand likes implies they represent a sizeable chunk of potential voters in Ireland's marriage equality referendum, and, if so, they might represent some sort of cohesive body.

So I checked.

SocialBakers.com is great for that sort of thing, if you're interested. Do read the full report. You'll likely share my raised eyebrow when you note how obscenely popular this Irish organisation is in Spanish speaking countries. Indeed the country where it is most popular is Mexico, not a location traditionally associated with obsession with Irish civil marriages.

Peru, despite being on another hemisphere, speaking a different language, and being separated by an ocean, still manages to supply more fans of "Ireland's Largest Pro-Life/Pro-Family Human Rights Organisation" than Ireland herself. Over an eighth of the fans of this English speaking page find their home in Argentina, and Chileans who worry that two women might receive social recognition of their loving commitment on the other side of the world make up nearly 5% of their fanbase.

Despite this unexpected success with the global Spanish speaking market, only 0.3% of those who like them on Facebook are based in Spain. Indeed their fanbase seems to overlap more neatly with locations traditionally associated with fake Facebook accounts.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Whatever the cause, barring significant geopolitical developments, I don't see this audience exercising much influence over the voting booths.

What new can I say about the Irish group Family and Life? Their past projects have included campaigning against the HSE's desire to provide vaccines for children. Their Facebook page seems unnervingly popular in Spanish speaking countries famed for producing fake Facebook accounts.

When not fighting against children's rights to receive the MMR vaccine they find time to fight against some children's rights to have married parents. I speak, of course, of the upcoming marriage referendum. The only unifying motivation that could explain such desire to fight medical and societal progress is lust to see Ireland returned to the 1950's.

But I digress.

They have printed a leaflet for every household in Ireland and from it I learn their endeavour was not accomplished without assistance.They partner with Mothers and Fathers Matter, a company that celebrates its fourth month in existence today, and Marriage Diversity, a group which I am told have yet to launch.

It is I hope not unkind of me to hypothesise that Family and Life are the senior partner of the three.

A digression - I'm going to be charitable with Marriage Diversity and assume they have been both unfortunate in their choice of name and negligent in their preparatory research. Both www.MarriageDiversity.com and www.MarriageDiversity.org link to rather hateful content, including this opening paragraph of their 'gay marriage facts' page which some will find distressing:

"Homosexuality is not just another alternative lifestyle or even a sexual "preference;" it is unhealthy and destructive behavior which negatively impacts individual persons, families, and society. Same sex attraction is a symptom of a developmental disorder that can often be prevented and can be treated. [this, of course, is bollocks -Geoff] Homosexual advocacy groups seeking to normalize homosexual behavior by equating homosexuality with innate characteristics such as race or ethnicity should be opposed."

More pleasingly, https://www.facebook.com/MarriageDiversity is run by pro marriage equality canvassers and celebrates diverse, married viewpoints calling for same sex marriage rights.

This is a serious gaffe. Churches are distributing these leaflets. People are going door to door delivering them. They're listed as sponsored by a hate group. I don't have any advice on how to unring this bell, but I would urge no campaigners to at least disavow the existing group of that name.

All that said, let's have a look at the arguments. I won't reproduce the text - do have a look at the original.

Marriage Deserves Special CareThe resiliency marriage has shown is remarkable. It was a right we once denied to slaves. Catholics had their marriage rights severely restricted in penal times. Interracial marriages were still illegal in the 1960's in parts of the USA. In Ireland we once forced women from their careers when they wed. Despite all this the institution persevered, matured, and grew with us as we took faltering steps away from discrimination. It is not in change that marriage faces risk, it is stagnation.

Who amongst us would have wed if the institution still discriminated on racial grounds? Or offered Catholics lesser rights than Protestants? Marriage is harder to access financially. The Catholic Church is still the primary celebrant of marriage in Ireland and trust in their organisation is at its nadir. Anyone genuinely concerned for the institution has two more pressing areas to consider.

Civil Partnership Already Gives Legal Rights / Difference Not Discrimination
Here Family and Life play the awkward balancing act of saying how terrible marriage equality would be while simultaneously saying that civil partnership confers all the same rights and recognition as marriage. It is insufficient to say that this does not pass muster. Instead it goes to the wrong exam hall, misspells 'muster' on the answer booklet and then draws rude pictures in crayon.

Keep Ideology out of SchoolsAn unexpected yet welcome approach from Family and Life, who have a voracious appetite for introducing their ideology into schools. Their Education for Life pack is a self described"...cure for the sex educators' brazen lies" and seeks to combat the "godless" and "smutty" information contained in the curriculum's relationships and sexuality education.

They also enjoy discussing abortion with scoolchildren. And this isn't automatically a bad thing, but does rather leave one with the impression that their anti vaccination, anti sex education and anti marriage equality ideology is the only ideology they want in schools.

Protect Conscience Rights and Freedoms
Let us look at the examples given. There's Daintree, a company that went out of business because the owner didn't much like gay couples having cake toppers. The general public found out and didn't much care to shop there any more. It's under new management. From what I can tell they now can't get enough of same sex cake toppers, and business seems to be thriving.

Let us be clear: voting no will not stop this. There will be no tick box on the referendum slip that will call on the state to force her citizens to buy their stationery from companies they don't much care for. Same sex couples will continue to desire wedding and civil union paraphernalia. People of typical marrying age will continue to support their right to do so. Purchasing decisions will be made with this in mind. Stalin had a retail system that could subvert this trend, but believe me, you don't want it.

The freedoms denied by voting no are myriad and for the most part obvious. And what of the conscience rights of those of faith who wish to celebrate same sex unions? Why should the government continue to block Reformed Judaism, Unitarians, and others from the performance of their sacraments? There is some discussion in the Church of Ireland on the matter and while I don't see it bearing imminent fruit I don't think it should be the government that rules their Theology incorrect. If conscience rights and freedoms are important to you, vote yes.

Every Child Deserves A Mother's Love / A Child’s Identity is Important
Children raised by same sex couples already exist. The best evidence shows clearly that same sex couples are just as loving, just as exhausted, and just as broke as the rest of us. Their kids turn out as well as anyone else's. Even if you choose to ignore the uncontested nature of the research on this topic, how does denying their parents the stability and support of marriage improve their lot?

The ISPCC is calling for a yes vote. Family and Life opposes vaccinations and sex education and calls for a no vote. Which organisation do you feel shows the greater concern for the wellbeing of children?

If this leaflet campaign has annoyed you, consider a donation to YesEquality so they can print their leaflets. Broke? Contact your local canvassing group and help deliver said leaflets. If you're extra annoyed, do both!

Over the coming weeks every household in Ireland will receive a leaflet entitled "7 Great [sic] Reasons To Keep Marriage As Is"

One of the groups listed as sponsoring the endeavour is "Marriage Diversity". It shares a name with an American group who consider the natural variety of human sexuality an abhorrence and something to be 'cured'. The stated aim of the organisation is to oppose same sex marriage. They own both www.marriagediversity.com and www.marriagediversity.org and would not have been easily overlooked while choosing a name for an anti marriage equality group.

Visitors to these sites will find very vile lie ever told about those who do not share my sexuality. (See 'gay marriage facts' if you are strong of stomach.) It pains me to quote from them, but I feel it best to share a tiny sliver of their slanders rather than have you wade through the morass. They pretend those in same sex relationships have a life expectancy of 50, are alcoholic, depressed, violent towards their partners, are disposed towards crime, that the average number of partners for gay men is 308, they pretend it is impossible for two men to be in a monogamous relationship, and then pretend only 1% of the population is gay or bi. If you're not already aware what patent nonsense this is then I suggest you find more pertinent reading material than this blog.

It bears emphasising that every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender child in Ireland will receive this. To their home. In the place where this group we have marginalised should feel safest, those opposed to civil marriage rights have chosen to introduce the name of a hate group. Some of these children will certainly Google those so opposed to their future right to marry and be faced with this hateful, damaging, and dangerous nonsense.

Who is distributing this? In an earlier post I discussed Family and Life, the longest established group who has chosen to add their name to this leaflet. But what of the third partner, Mothers and Fathers Matter? Thankfully broadsheet.ie has already covered their makeup. Most significantly, we learn that the site is hosted on the same infrastructure as CatholicBishops.ie.

Those behind this leaflet either felt it acceptable to choose the name of a homophobic hate club or simply weren't bothered to see if the name was associated with a group so damaging to the mental health of LGBTQ children. Remember this when they claim to act with their best interests at heart.

Mandrake and Lothar. For Marriage?

When deciding which Irish citizens should be permitted marriage it is wise of us to consider outside the naturalistic realm. Today I found myself concerned with Mandrakes.

For those whose Harry Potter knowledge falters, Mandrakes are magical plants with humanoid tubers. Their cry when young grates on the ears. When older their shriek can prove fatal.

It brought me pleasure to discover the group Mandrake for Marriage. Come May 23rd, should the referendum pass, their whoops of delight will likely kill us all.

But this was not the Mandrake I sought. Rather I wished to find the view of the dapper Mandrake the Magician (pictured right) and his burly companion Lothar. Regrettably, despite considerable research, I was unable to determine which way these 1930's comic book stars swung.

During this research I made a rare typo and found myself on ManDateForMarriage.org. I assumed it was a singles site for marriage inclined men, but having probed the jumbled mess of their hilariously misnamed site further I discovered that the site actually calls for a No vote.

My desire for knowledge of Lothar and Mandrake unquenched I moved to return to Bing. But then I noticed the trio of Burkes who produced the site share my concern for the supernatural realm. Indeed in one of their recent posts they claim to be able to correctly arbitrate Biblical scripture's messages on civil marriage matters.

The remainder of this post will evaluate their efforts with said scriptures. As the discussion will involve the Old Testament it will have to include discussion of rape. Please consider this a content warning. I'll include a picture of Mandrake and Lothar wearing matching rings to space the text a little:

Sodom, Begorrah

The Burke's open their argument against marriage equality by taking us to the village of Sodom. A brace of angels are visiting Lot, and, as you likely remember from our mandatory two and a half hours a week of religion classes, the menfolk of the village in their entirety arrives at Lot's doorstep determined to rape the androgynous, celestial beings.

Lot, being a righteous man of God, offers his virgin daughters to the crowd of men instead.

Objection: This will require unpacking, and it's clear the Burkes are operating under some misinterpretations. The referendum on May 22nd will affect civil marriage rights. I have studied the text of the amendment thoroughly and can find no loophole that would allow a village full of men to force themselves sexually on otherworldly messengers of God. In fact, as asexual beings, the winged messengers of the Almighty will be unable to marry either each other or humans under the constitution. I feel the Burke's concerns are unwarranted here.

The Burkes further cite an intervention from He who caused the Universe to Exist: a raining of fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gemorrah.

Objection: Supernatural destruction is something we should seek to avoid for environmental, economic, and tourism reasons. That said, given the legalisation of same sex marriage in many nations worldwide and the thankfully low rate of annihilation by fire, brimstone and associated phenomena observed I feel their worries are misplaced.

Leviticus

The Burkes move to newer (yet still ancient) territory and ask us to consider a document that contains nice instructions about leaving some of your crops unharvested so that the poor and the traveller might eat. It encourages using all leftover meats within three days. I do not object. There is a brief list of approved haircuts and beard styles to which I am certain the menfolk of the Burke household adhere. Doubtless the Burkes, despite their selective editing of their chosen quotes, are aware of the transgressions deserving of death from this document. They include:

Cursing your parents
Adultery
Men having sex with men

The law's a funny thing. Say you want children killed for their potty mouths and you'll find yourself arrested, yet declare that your God wants it and you'll likely get a tax break to better spread your sincerely held belief.

Leviticus goes on to recommend expulsion for any couple who has sex during the woman's period. It would be indelicate of me to ask the Burke patriarch how closely he cleaves to this rule. That said, perhaps he has not always been a native of Galway?

Objection: Allowing same sex couples to marry will not materially affect the rate at which men have sex with men. Despite the Burke's favouring of the text, a no vote will not introduce compulsory expulsion for married couples who have sex during the woman's period.

Evidence

The Burkes bolster their case by citing New Testament verses indicating Paul, Jesus and Jude were familiar with the Old Testament.

Objection: A casual glance through the New Testament will reveal the person of Jesus who came to free people from the rules of the Old Testament. He offered his life willingly as perfect sacrifice for our sins, should we be willing to accept it.

The New Testament is available online, in libraries and in many hotels. I do recommend the Burkes seek out a copy.

Some New Testament Commentary

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..." Romans 1 26:27

Here the Burkes cite Paul's discussion of a group who made and worshipped idols. God was displeased, so he forced them to rape each other.

I call this the "what the thundering fuck?" verse.

Objection: The proposed amendment is bereft of mention of idols, worshiped or otherwise. Indeed idol worship is currently legal. The amendment governs same sex couples who wish to marry the right to do so, if they both consent. It remains silent on gods who use rape as a tool to show their anger.

The Burkes proceed to pluck from the Bible in a fashion more commonly seen when my fellow atheists first discover its text is searchable, and give us a quote from 1 Corinthians 6.

But what if we skip to 1 Corinthians 7?

"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." 1 Cor 7, 8-9

Paul would rather opposite sex couples not get married. Marriage, to him, is worse than the single life of evangelisation, but better than burning in hellfire. And it's Burke's right to disagree with Paul on this, but if they do, they stand on poor foundations to force their reading of the text into civil law.

My Theology is unlikely to win any awards, but when I read the New Testament I see a profound disinterest in regulating non Christian civil marriages. Despite the Burkes' best efforts, they've been unable to force the text to say what they want it to.

My vote stays with the Mandrakes.

"We never intended to raise children" starts Bodhmall, welcoming me to the home she shares with her life partner Liach Luachra in an enchanting rural wood. They've been kind enough to share with me their experiences raising a child as parents of the same gender. Look it up if you don't believe me.

"But when your brother in law is brutally murdered by your father and your sister is forced to live on the run from men who want to burn her alive based on her choice of partner, well, you step up."

Liach nods her agreement as she roasts a hare over their open hearth. She joins in.

"It was a mess. We were totally unprepared. People always think of Fionn Mac Cumhaill as a fearless giant of a man, able to defeat entire armies in single combat. But they don't think what it's like to raise a child with that much energy."

"I think parenting is knowing you've been given the most important job in the world to do. That you've been given something precious - the chance to give someone the best start in life - it's terrifying. Because no matter how hard you work at it you'll never think you're doing justice to the person they're becoming."

"You're too hard on yourself" interrupts Bodhmall, setting the table, "our son led na Fianna, killed the fire breathing fairy Aillen, built the Giant's Causeway, and made us that lovely fishing lake when he threw the Isle of Man into the sea. He turned out fine."

"I hate to ask, but did you ever find opposition from religious leaders?"

Liach considers my question while sharpening the edge of a disemboweling spear designed to be held between the toes.

"No. I can honestly say we've never been troubled by the Druids."

I ask if they can tell me a little about Fionn's early days. Like any parents they smile at the opportunity to share happy memories.

"Martial arts really helped Fionn focus that energy of his. I swear, before he started on the spear and sword we were run ragged. But once we had him sparring a couple of times a day he started sleeping through the night and we were able to make regular time for ourselves. You know, as a couple. It's important as new parents to do that. Especially if either one of you can disembowel a man at twenty paces. It doesn't do to let pent up frustrations linger."

Liach nods sagely. I raise my final question cautiously.

"There are some who say children should only be raised by a man and a woman in in a married relationship. That men and women have unique traits that are essential to raising a child. What would you say to that?"

The silence terrifies. Liach smiles and tries to put me at ease.

"I find people like that don't like to say what these 'unique' roles are. If you look at any claimed gender specific trait closely enough it tends to disappear into the vapour. I mean, Bodhmall and I are undefeated in single combat, and many men have tried. And a lot of Fionn's schooling took place outside the home and some people say that's a woman's responsibility. But even if you did go in for gender roles - are you really going to argue Fionn doesn't fit the traditional mould of masculinity?"

Bodhmall is examining the edge of the spear Liach recently sharpened.

"These Druids who think I'm a bad parent. Would they be within twenty paces of here?"

I graduated from DCU more years ago than I dare remember. The march of time was borne home last month when I attended a campus debate on marriage equality. I found several new buildings and a student bar that looked liked it enjoyed a regular clean. My old computer labs were peopled by socially well adjusted students possessing impeccable personal hygiene. I hardly recognised the place.

Arriving as I did dressed in work attire I was initially greeted by the students as a no voter. The reception was warm enough, and as I received directions round the campus on which I'd spent four years of my life I took a moment to clarify my side. I received a free yes badge and did my best to remember my way through a maze of new structures to find Senators Zappone and Mullen, partnered respectively with John Lyons TD and Keith Mills of Mothers and Fathers Matter.

I enjoy a planned speech as much as the next mid thirties chap surrounded by a sea of youth, but for me the joy of a debate is the unrehearsed to and fro of the questions and answers section. The students of my former university did not disappoint and the auditorium strained capacity with articulate and well researched challenges to the no side's unique and strained interpretation of facts, studies, and the very fabric of reality.

Of particular focus was the no side's claim that children of same sex couples fare worse than the offspring of opposite sex married couples. Dwelling on this unevidenced claim is appropriate - it's damaging nonsense. In addition to a strong showing from the student body a sociology professor spoke eloquently about how the crushing weight of reality shattered the assertions of Mullen and Mills. Reputable studies supporting same sex parents were listed, the absence of opposing studies noted. It fell to Mills to mount a defence.

Mills, it seems, does not much favour the available sociological data. He noted that much of it was gleaned from study participants in the United States of America, a land he views as blighted by divorce, young marriage rates, and failed marriages. Ireland, it seems, does marriage better.

But here Mothers and Fathers Matter face an unpalatable conclusion. Mills has identified a sociological group who he deems less suitable for marriage. A group that marries, to his mind, too young. A group he sees as having a higher divorce rate, something likely to - what are his words? - deprive a child of a mother and father.

So why not bar Americans from matrimony?

We could introduce legislation to inform American visitors that their marriages are not recognised on Irish soil. Perhaps we could offer a separate-but-equal track called American unions, allowing some legal protections, but leaving the institution of Irish marriage unsullied. We could poster the streets with false claims about their children and claim we act with their best interests at heart.

You may find this daft. You may wonder why anyone would seek to bar a section of society from the support and stability marriage brings to couples. In fact I rather hope you do. All I ask is that you hold that feeling close when you next hear Mothers And Fathers Matter.

I've been wearing a wedding ring for three happy years. We'll be celebrating our fourth anniversary in September. More recently I've been celebrating my support of marriage for all couples by wearing a Yes Equality badge, sometimes in English, sometimes in Irish.

Last Wednesday on College Green a lady of sorts asked me if I spoke Irish. "Tá roinnt agam ach ní bíonn mórán seans agam í a úsáid", my brain answered, a plan stymied by the fact my mouth was full.

I waved my hand in front of my face to explain my predicament and she saw my wedding ring. Pausing only to identify herself as a no voter she embarked on a monologue more shouted than spoken. I wasn't "really" married, she told me. Nor, I learned, was I truly in love. I was merely fulfilling base sexual desire.

Having publicly denigrated the most important relationship in my life she moved focus to its wider social implications.

Those within her considerably expanded earshot learned that my sham marriage was a tool of division, malevolent in its intent to force women in the majority world to rent their wombs.

I'm not an unreasonable sort. I attempted to make the conversation less of a one way affair but she proved unwilling to indulge me. She paused only long enough to add that she was yet to wed before - perhaps sensing the surrounding audience had changed - moving to repeat her cold refrain that I should not call myself married.

I had started walking and she viewed this as an opportunity to join me, her earnestness expressing to those of reasonable hearing that the band on my left ring finger signalled the destruction of childhoods through the combined selfishness of my partner and I.

This continued, unencumbered by social grace, pleasantry, or acknowledgement that my profession of love was anything more than an abstract thought experiment to be dashed by right thinking members of society. We approached my bus stop where I half expected an unfettered treatise on the rights of people like me to avail of public transport. Instead - absent trace of irony - she apologised for being unable to spare me further time and entered Temple Bar.

And I laughed. A nervous laugh, but a laugh nonetheless. Telling me my wife and I are not truly married is as threatening to me as saying I'm a lightly grilled cheese sandwich. We have signed government documents and constitutional protection of the commitment we have made to each other. The good folks that people this island broadly see the enterprise of our union as positive both for us and for society. They may not celebrate our anniversary with us but in general they wish us well. Our commitment is afforded a certain respect.

What if that were absent? I cannot, indeed dare not call this no voter homophobic. She is the human embodiment of a no poster and I am called upon to celebrate the expression of her sincerely held beliefs in the public square. The no side's obtuse demand is that we consider our partners, our children or our parents - that which is at the heart of our lives - fair game, a distant second priority to their sincerely held beliefs, and utterly undeserving of any modicum of respect.

We see this when Keith Mills of Mothers and Fathers Matter used air quotes to refer a student's mothers on the Late Late show last night. We saw it again, minutes later, when fellow no campaigner Paddy Manning employed the phrase "I don't care what children's charities say", dismissing the evidence of hundreds of child welfare professionals to better denigrate families not headed by opposite sex parents.

I see it in the single parents and adopted people I have met both through friendships and through canvassing, their families ruled inferior by the stock photos and glib phrases of the No posters. And I see its effects on those who are forced to conceal the truth about the person they love.

Nearly every week I'm joined on a canvas by a first timer. We don't get many natural extroverts. What we do get is people of courage. People willing to risk personal abuse or - to my mind worse - public indifference to their desire to celebrate their love and commitment in the way my wife and I can. As a married person it buoys me to see so many willing to fight for the institution. I see a trend in these new canvassers as they shuffle through their notes and rehearse long practiced conversations. They all worry that they won't correctly recall the myriad legal distinctions between civil partnerships and marriage.

In ten weeks of canvassing that question has never arisen.

To my mind this is because the population already knows the privation inherent in a civil partnership that can never be corrected by legislative tweak: respect. The bulwark of societal support that could counteract the attempts to be made feel less by No posters and their public speakers. The right to share your relationship status without concern for the reaction. The privilege of crossing the road without strangers following you to disavow your love for your spouse. This respect, this difference between civil partnership and marriage is why my experience of what the sincerely held beliefs of that no voter is now an anecdote and not a damaging experience.

Can we grant this respect with a yes vote on May 22nd? Interracial marriage did not end racism. Mixed marriages, as they were once called, did not immediately end sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants. But they were both damn fine starts.

A guest post by the talented Joanne Duffy of Oriental Cutlery.

Hey Dave, how’s it going?

So I’ve just been watching this videothat I found of you speaking against marriage equality, while 6 signs for YES EQUALITY that got ripped down in Galway are sitting in my house waiting to be put back up by the tireless campaigners here. You know all about tireless campaigning, I’m sure.

So, you said that this referendum is connected to protecting the 8^th amendment. Now, Dave, I know you didn’t mean that. Because later in this same video you go on to tell us that this referendum is about changing Article 41, The Family in our constitution. Gay men, as you so often remind us, cannot have babies. So why would they care about abortion laws? I’m sure this was just a slip up, forgot the morning coffee did you? Sometimes I forget my coffee too and it makes me a little groggy, but it doesn’t make me confuse segments of documents upon which a Republic is founded.

Moving on then. So you’ve said that the media are biased and are on the yes side, and have been perpetuating “uninterrupted propaganda”. Now I’m no history buff, I got an honour in the junior cert but that’s about as far as it goes. But I know that the word propaganda means communications, usually from the Government, that are designed to influence the opinion of citizens. Can you point me to where you’ve seen propaganda? Or more importantly, go straight to the BAI. They’ll be very helpful if they hear that there is an outlet somewhere who is not adhering to the balance ruling they made. I really hope that sound I just heard was your coffee machine going on.

You went on to claim that some people are comparing you to racists, and comparing the acquisition and pursuit of same-sex marriage to the pursuit of interracial marriage in the United States. You claim that allowing people of different races to marry is fine, as no one else’s rights are affected. But the thing is, at the time, white people believed their rights were being affected. They believed it to be an affront to society that black people would be allowed to marry white people. Kind of like the way you believe that your rights, and the rights of children you don’t know, won’t ever know, and who haven’t even been born yet will be affected. Is that coffee ready yet?

You then said that we were redefining the family. But really Dave, who gets to define anyone’s family? I grew up with an aunt of mine and I very much see her as my sibling. My sister is 12 years older than me and I see her very much in line with my parents’ roles because of that. You said that this referendum is asking us to pretend that two men or two women are the same thing as a man and a woman. But Dave, that’s just silly! I thought it was asking us to allow two men to have access to the same rights as the other citizens of the country in which they reside? I’m due new glasses in a couple of days, the optician said my sight is slightly worse than my last test but I really didn’t think I was reading the wording that poorly. Maybe it’s just that I’m not as short sighted as you. Get yourself an espresso Dave, you’ve a long few weeks ahead of you.

You said that words like equality are misleading. So, the word equality means “the state of being equal, especially in status, rights or opportunities”. So for example, if you have the right to buy a banana, but I don’t have the right to buy a banana, we are not equal. “Baby stuff”, as you said yourself. You also complained that people advocating a yes vote want gender quotas in government and business, yet not in marriages and families. There’s a pretty simple answer to that. Discrimination against women happens on a societal level and is systemic. Gender quotas aim to address this. The reason this cannot be applied to parenting is because what a child needs is to be cared for. Fed. Read to. Understood. Supported. Loved unconditionally. Chastised, challenged, educated, nurtured. This has nothing to do with systemic sexism. As a woman I’m not discriminated against by my family, but by society I am. So there’s the difference. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “It takes a village to raise a child”. But of course you seem to think that it should be something along the lines of “It takes a village to raise a child, except the only gay in the village”. Quad shot latté. Stat.

If we vote yes in this referendum, what we are doing is affording the same rights that you and I have as heterosexual people to those who identify with other sexualities. That really is all that is going to happen. The definition of family has already been changed with the Children and Family Relationships Bill. In fact the definition of family changes on a daily basis for families around the country who are having their first child, losing a parent, losing a grandparent, losing a neighbour, meeting a long lost relative who was adopted to an unknown family by the Catholic Church, making a connection with a teacher, meeting your future spouse. You absolutely don’t get to define anyone else’s family, you never have and you never will. And if we vote yes May 22^nd, the State will recognise and afford rights to so many more of the colourful and beautiful families that make up our nation. Women are not the same as men Dave, you’re right. And 2^ndclass is not the same as equal.

I need a coffee after that.

I come late to the realisation that my marriage does not meet the standards promulgated by our friends in Mothers and Fathers Matter.

I could forgive their focus on child rearing as the sine qua non of marriage. True, it devalues my childless union. The respect afforded to my parents' marriage is also diminished; their days raising children are now complete. Mothers and Fathers Matter's slurs against marriages that start or continue outside the formative years of progeny are softened by an occasional pleasantry of inclusion, a nod towards my capacity to pass on my genetic code, a formalised affirmation that, although not of the same kind, a technicality allows us to claim to be of the same category as those marriages Mothers and Fathers Matter choose to affirm.

I can no longer even claim this consolation of second class marriage. It seems my wife and I have run afoul of another condition. Let's look at articles written by some of their founders:

"Importance of gender differences in marriage is a matter of common sense... [same sex marriage] is based on a proposition that gender does not matter. But if we take the time to look around, observe and listen, it clearly matters."Prof Ray Kinsella

"[same sex marriage] proponents ... insist that two men can do the job of a mum and a dad just as well, as can two women. This means they deny the importance of sexual complementarity." - David Quinn

"Mothers and fathers bring distinctive gifts to parenting. They tend to show their love, and to provide strength and comfort, in different ways.

Our instinct is to say that there are very real and important differences between men and women and it really does matter whether one is born male or female."Dr Rik Van Nieuwenhove et al

Emphasis mine in all cases. There is a common thread in these articles - that, solely by virtue of their gender, men and women have unique, distinct traits that are important to a child's upbringing and it is in society's best interests to ensure only marriages which provide the entire gamut of these otherwise inaccessible traits earn state recognition.

It is here I learn that my marriage is not counted as such by Mothers And Fathers Matter. My wife taught me how to drive. I have abandoned teaching her how to iron and instead do her ironing for her. Despite my best efforts she's still better on the farm than I. None of these characteristics are based on our genders. The closest we have ever come to gender specific roles in our relationship is a brief yet binding discussion on the ideal placement of the toilet seat.

By our failure to yet sire heirs or bring gender specific traits to our relationship my wife and I have a marriage that is unrecognisable when compared to the definition offered by Mothers and Fathers Matter. I'm sure you share my interest in finding out what their supposedly gender linked traits might be. And Mothers and Fathers Matter seem well placed to tell us - they boast an advisory committee of psychologists, Theologians, and philosophers, yet seem remarkably reticent to expend ink on the matter. One spokesperson claims that women instinctively know they are best placed to be carers, and that ignoring this innate knowledge leads to feelings of conflict should they choose to return to work. Let us be polite and merely call this claim unevidenced. It is remarkable to me that this group wants our constitutional understanding of marriage to be based on their understanding of innate and essential gender roles yet seem incapable of sharing with us what these roles are.

This confusion was diminished somewhat when I read the words of Mothers and Fathers Matter's spokesperson, Kate Bopp, who discussed the family pictured in no posters adorning some of the nation's lampposts. (For those that missed it, they recently disavowed the no campaign's approach and endorsed a yes vote.) Bopp's choice of adjectives to describe the event are noteworthy: in two short sentences she used 'hysterical', 'silly', 'little', and 'bitch'.

Are these the unique and important gender roles we wish to inculcate in our sons and daughters? Do we here see in these words the peculiar and essential traits that must be reinforced throughout a child's development? 'Hysterical' and 'Bitch' are terms we use to demean and dismiss women. 'Silly' and 'Little' are often their accompaniments as society expends its energies to thwart the ambition of women (and indeed men) who push the boundaries of the gender roles Mothers and Fathers Matter feel warrant constitutional protection.

That said we cannot ignore the vacuum in which we operate. Mothers and Fathers Matter sees the electorate as unworthy of knowing the essential gender roles they wish be forced upon children. We can but speculate. It is not unreasonable to feel that the shroud of secrecy would hardly be draped over a positive concept, but still: what is the most charitable reading?

I'm fortunate that my office recently arranged a talk by Binna Kandola. He and his wife are psychologists and authors of 'The Invention Of Difference', a fascinating, disturbing, and yet hopeful look at prescriptive gender roles throughout history. Do buy it. I had been of the impression that society was on a reasonably positive upward swing - that over the millenia we'd graduated from truly awful to slightly less awful in reliable enough increments.

Then I learned that we had more tradeswomen in 12th century Switzerland than we now have in the United States. That women's soccer reached its height of popularity in 1920. That on-site childcare facilities and equal pay legislation were in force in the UK a century ago.

What I found especially pertinent was how inaccurate positive gender stereotypes are and what damage they can cause. It's worth a long quote:

"If gender stereotypes are made up of positive attributes, then what's the problem? It would appear that the stereotypes we hold support the valuing of difference. But although the same associated with women are positive in the abstract, they are not those that are valued or deemed necessary in a business context - and especially not in a leadership role. Many of the traits stereotypically associated with women are not those stereotypically associated with leadership or male gender type roles. How many leaders do you hear described primarily as warm and caring? As such, while on the surface positive stereotypes attached to women appear to be compliments, they can and do hinder women's career progression. Studying over 600 letters of recommendation for academic positions over an eight-year period, researchers found that letters of recommendation were written differently for men and women. The letters for women were described with stereotypical feminine qualities (communal, i.e. more socially oriented and people-focused) whereas those for men were described with stereotypical masculine qualities (agentic, i.e. getting things done and task-focused). Furthermore, communal traits were inversely related to hiring decisions regardless of gender.

... describing a woman as warm but omitting anything about her competence will lead to negative inferences about her competence. Although the same is true for men, the damage to them is less severe. Describing men as competent but omitting anything about their warmth will do less harm, since it is competence that is valued when it comes to progression in organisations.

...

Stereotypes lead to expectations about how a man and woman will perform in certain roles. When a woman is being considered for a role in an area traditionally seen as male, say a leadership position, the stereotypical traits she is thought to possess (empathy, kindness and so on) are compared to the stereotypical traits associated with leadership (such as assertiveness and decisiveness). Because the leadership prototype is constructed on stereotypically male traits, when a woman is matched against the prototype the expectation is that she will fall short, whereas a man will be evaluated favourably."

What potential have we squandered over the centuries by insisting on a 'correct' way of being a woman or a man? What would happen if we abandoned this grand social project to restrict half our population? What leaders, what scientists, and what history changers have we lost to the desire to constrict ambitions to the narrow confines of these stereotypes?

Mothers and Fathers Matter want gender roles to form the bedrock of our constitutional understanding of marriage. I'd ask them their opinion, but they'd probably just call me a hysterical, silly, little bitch.

A guest post.

I've been heterosexual as far as I can remember. It's simple enough. Growing up, I've always seen women as attractive. As friends as a young teenager, but also as I grew up I grew to find women attractive in a sexual sense as an adult. I think it progressively happens as one grows into a male adult.

However, it wasn't always that easy. As an 8 year old I was bullied horrendously for hobbies I pursued. I was massively involved in horses and showjumping as a result of hanging out with people who lived near my school who owned horses that got me involved in the sport. I fell in love with horses, and still love them to this day.

I won't toot my own horn as an intellectual 8-10 year old, but at the time I could tell I was being bullied for something that wasn't right. Frequently I was called gay and a faggot, and an absolute homo. Never mind being called an utter queer for the hobbies I enjoyed. It pissed me off to no end. Being a moderately more intelligent individual, I started researching. "What's a homo? What's a faggot? What's a queer?"

The only literature I could find as an 8-10 year old in the late 90's was all the utter nonsense the Church had spouted in mass, and also the utter nonsense they put on the shelves in the library in school. Logically, none of it made sense at the time. Actually, I'll be proud of myself here, because at the time, it literally made zero sense. My first foray into "Where's the logic here?".

I grew to hate homosexuality because it was put down by the Church, and because I was being put down as a result of it as a form of slagging. I very much adopted a "FUCK YOU!" approach to anyone that accused me of being a homosexual. I got the shit kicked out of me for telling people I'm not gay. It wasn't good enough for them because I couldn't prove I wasn't.

I went to Switzerland as a 12 year old with the Scouts in about 2000, and got my first taste of heavy metal. It was like a relief. Hearing Metallica's Master of Puppets for the first time is indescribable. Hearing those over-driven Marshall amps for the first time was a revelation. That fucking music knew what I was going through. It was like the music was taking over from me, to tell everyone that pissed me off to go and fuck themselves. It made me pick up a guitar to learn how to channel that anger myself through those riffs. I cannot thank my brother enough for casually telling me: "Here, you might like this!" and blasting out the entire album. Best and worst decision he's ever made by making me listen to that album! ;)

Anyway!

My dad bought me my copy of the Lord of the Rings on the 7th of April 2002 with the note: "Enjoy!" It was a gift from him that is my most cherished possession. I still remember buying it with him in Easons in Swords, and him bending the front cover of it as he put it under his arm as I gave it to him so I could get out of the car. The crease is still there to this day! ;)

That trilogy of books was, and is, an absolute escape for any 15 year old, and is still an escape for me. It's still something I pick up to this day. One or two sentences, and it reminds me of the mental escape I found from the bullying and misery that I endured as an 8-10 year old. I was glad and am still glad, that that misery was/is over.

As a teenager, when I heard Viggo Mortensen bought the horses when The Lord of the Rings finished filming and gave them to the horse handlers, all I could think was: "Viggo knows. Viggo knows exactly how I feel when it comes to these animals." Having looked up to him playing Aragorn, my respect for him was quadrupled when I heard that he had such a respect for horses that I had as a kid. One of the first thoughts I had as a young teenager was: "That man knows exactly how I felt as a kid. Loving animals is awesome, and I'm not wrong for believing it."

As I grew into a young man, I grew to find women attractive, as any young man would. One or two teenage romances there was the norm. All innocent stuff.

When 2nd to 3rd year rolled around in school, I noticed friends in my social circle started to come out as gay. Alarm bells started ringing in my head. "What the hell is all this?""I've been accused of this before. Not for me!" and I didn't want anything to do with them.

It wasn't until about 2005-2006 when I started college when I became friends with some truly wonderful people who are gay that cemented my belief in how awesome these people are.

I had been bullied as a young man by people who used homosexuality as a derogatory term, and it kindled a flame in me that made me angry that the people who I've come to know as some of the kindest, most gentle people ever, were being treated as second class citizens because the people they loved were of the same sex as them.

It's been 8-9 years since I realised that people who are gay in this country are completely normal in every respect. I now regularly go on the piss with my friends who are gay, whinge about hangovers with my friends who are gay, get pints and whine about miserable shit that is pissing me off about day to day life with my friends who are gay, and all other sorts of day to day stuff.

I'm not perfect, and I have fucked up horrendously when drunk or whatever, so I am no saint or straight edge person you might think, but regardless of that, the main message is important.

As a heterosexual man who has been on the receiving end of horrendous gay bashing, I urge everyone to go out and vote on Friday and vote YES. Give all our gay brothers and sisters the chance to marry the people they love so that Ireland is truly equal. Don't be unnerved by anything that tries to dissuade you from the fact that you are voting on the marriage between two individuals who love each other.

Take care and I do hope to see an equal Ireland come Sunday morning.

I'm told - with much exuberance - that it's important to hold an opinion on Identity Ireland. To be honest they seem to small to bother with the requisite reading.

Below are some stats on their Twitter account, presented largely without comment.

Total number of followers: 363

Location of followers: Normally this can be a little more involved, but to cut to the chase: 169 of their followers have timezone information set. Of those 140 are in Irish timezones. Sixteen are based in the States.
Another method of checking where followers come from is looking at the self-described location of followers. Here's a word cloud of where their followers say they're from:

I know there's a suspicion that they're mainly followed by UKIP / BNP supporters, but the evidence doesn't support this.

Follower descriptions: Here I pulled the Twitter biographies of everyone who follows Identity Ireland's Twitter account and put them in a word cloud. The more frequently a word is used in a follower's self description, the larger it gets:

Quite a few journalists in the mix, and a general bias towards those interested in current affairs.

Finally, who do their followers also follow? I checked 302 accounts, pulled a list of which other accounts they follow, and used the information to find out which other accounts are also popular with followers of Identity Ireland.
They are, in order:

TheJournal.ie (Hardly a bastion of anti immigration thought)
RTE News
David McWilliams
Dara O'Briain (immigrant)
Luke 'Ming' Flannagan (seasonal migrant worker)
Independent.ie
The Irish Times
Lucinda Creighton
Vincent Browne (not famed for his condemnation of lax immigration policy)
Gerry Adams (immigrant, by unionist standards)
Fintan "Immigrants out" O'Toole
BBC Breaking News
Pope Francis (immigrant)
Shane Ross
Mick Wallace
GardaTraffic
Matt Cooper
Enda Kenny
Catherine Murphy
Nigel Farage

I can barely bother to force an opinion for such a tiny group. Their followers are genuine accounts and almost all based in Ireland. That said, are they supporters? The Journal is the account most popular with its followers and it has not lauded the party. Other accounts followed in the main indicate left wing, pro immigration views or a general interest in current events. But given their small size, should we really care?

A word cloud made from the Twitter biographies of followers of @CrossFitIreland

I've been spending too much of my disposable income on beer and cake of late. It's had a somewhat predictable effect on my centre of gravity so I've decided to look at alternative hobbies. CrossFit Ireland is walkable from work so I signed up - I now feel it important to assemble a half dozen reasons why you should not part with coin in this establishment.

Without further ado:

The Coaches

What can I say? Their taste in music is from the 80's, their humour from the 70's, and I'm pretty sure Colm's latest tshirt was originally fashioned in the 60's. There's two coaches per class of 10 - 15 participants so you get lots of individual attention. This makes it really hard to get away with sloppy technique and is completely ruining the sense of mystery and wonder I used to have about gymnastic movements.

The Enthusiasm

"How do you know if someone's doing CrossFit?
Don't worry, they'll tell you."

Listen, everyone knows that exercising isn't supposed to be fun. While proper exercisers approach the gym with a sense of drudgery and obligation, CrossFitters have the temerity to enjoy their supposed workouts. What manner of madness is this? Do you really want to risk trying a sport where the members are most famous for how much they enjoy working out? What would your life look like if exercise was more appealing than the couch? Wouldn't you rather spend your money on something that fills you with a nameless dread?

The Convenient Hours

Fancy a six am workout? Colm and Derek will be there. Seven to eight pm more your style? They'll still be there. Weekends? Yup. Want to turn up at 12:13pm and ask for a customised 27 minute workout that fits in your lunch break? They'll do that too. I'm fairly sure they don't leave.

This is awful. How's a man supposed to make up a convincing excuse for skipping a workout in these conditions?

The Criticisms

Many people who lift will give you a sustained, energy filled monologue on why CrossFit is not for them. Despite this, CrossFit wastes its time by focusing on building better athletes instead of criticising those who lift weights in a slightly different manner to them. What's really more important to you: getting in shape, or arguing with strangers on the internet? I think we both know the right call here.

The People

Regulars at CrossFit Ireland seem to be in the habit of introducing themselves to new people and making them feel welcome with polite smalltalk. They're a friendly bunch; everyone seems to genuinely want others to enjoy the sport. Unfortunately polite smalltalk is something of an impossibility halfway through your first workout so you'll be left responding to their pleasantries with sustained heavy breathing and eyes darting for escape routes. To be fair they tend not to take offence.

The New Skills

Who really needs to be able to do muscle ups anyway? When's the last time you needed to walk on your hands? People will be far more impressed when you show them your mastery of the ab roller.

The Male Ego

If you're intimidated by women who lift more than you you should definitely avoid CrossFit.

Friends, I urge you not to look at the class schedule. When there, avoid choosing one of the many convenient times and definitely don't contact the coaches to arrange a free class.

You have been warned.

Ireland has something of a reputation for literature. The contributions of our playwrights, poets and dramatists far exceeds what one would expect from a nation of our size and it was likely with this cultural talking point in mind that the Independent chose to run an intolerably long advertisement for Rosanna Davison's foray into the world of pretend medicine: a book called Eat Yourself Beautiful.

"[Davison] cites research that shows gluten to be the bad guy responsible for a huge range of medical conditions from autism spectrum disorders to schizophrenia to arthritis."

It seems this season that gluten is the new fluoride. Naturally, Arthritis Ireland have dismissed this tosh. Others greet this claim of research with a world weary sigh, confident that those in the field of pretend medicine use the term 'research' in a manner unrecognisable from the medical understanding. Twitter got quite upset.

"When I was earning my qualification in naturopathic nutrition and biochemistry at the College of Naturopathic Medicine Ireland..." - Rosanna Davison

I was unaware that Ireland possessed a College of Naturopathic Medicine. I certainly am unsure why we might desire such an institution. Some would see the place as humorous, offering courses in magic water and the belief you can diagnose illnesses by gazing into someone's eyes. The staff list is somewhat lacking but they do speak enthusiastically about Hermann Keppler, the principal and founder.

Have you had the pleasure of watching Saul Goodman? It's a spin-off and prequel of sorts to Breaking Bad. Do check it out. Without wishing to issue spoilers there is one character who believes that WiFi, mobile phones and certain other trappings of modern life emit a field which is hazardous to his health. He would find a welcoming ear in Davison's principal:

"Himalayan salt has been under high pressure for millions of years and formed crystals, like quartz. Those mineral crystals emanate frequencies which are specific to each mineral. In other words, each single mineral in Himalayan salt is a crystal with its own frequency and electromagnetic field. Himalayan salt can therefore strengthen weak frequencies in the body and balance out the strong frequencies... Environmental pollutions including electromagnetic and geopathic stress play an increasingly greater role in our society."Hermann Keppler

WiFi emits a magical field that will make you sick, it seems, but fear not - the magic of Himalayan salts is greater, and will sort you right out.

Society has reached an agreement of sorts with those who wish to pretend to do medicine. We'll tolerate pretty much any old nonsense as long as the spirit healer, shaman, nutritionist or phrenologist also recommends that those who fund their eccentricities contact someone with an actual medical qualification. Tell people to avoid mobile phones, if it makes you feel happy, but tell them to go to a real doctor to have their headaches checked out too, don't discourage real treatment, and we'll largely leave you to it.

Does Davison's principal hold up his end of this imperfect arrangement?

I have seen in my clinic lots of patients reacting negatively to vaccinations... Drugs, especially psychiatric drugs can have tremendously adverse side effects.

There are statistics which show that more than 60% of diseases are caused by drugs; that each 4th patient in America is delivered to a hospital because of the side-effect of drugs and that each 4th patient in America dies because of the side-effects of drugs… and these are drugs which are correctly prescribed and correctly taken. As a matter fact, fewer patients die in hospitals when doctors are on strike... Purify water, stay away from vaccinations and treat any health conditions naturally. -Hermann Keppler

His opposition to real medicine is clear. I encourage you to read the interview in its entirety for Keppler's opposition to the (real) treatment of ADHD and his unique take on the origins of Parkinson's. It is clear his views on vaccination are not unique within the organisation - see for example this anti vaccination conference organised by Davison's college's UK branch.

But this is a real college, is it not? Accredited and recognised? Surely Davison wouldn't have attached her name and considerable profile to anything other than the most impeccable of institutions?

It proved relatively easy to find details of the accreditation of Davison's degree in nutritioniology.You'll note that Irish accreditation is provided by the Irish Association of Nutritional Therapy. You'll also note that the website is down, surprising for a body described as both 'leading' and 'independent'. No matter, a look at solocheck.ie reveals that the organisation is run by Anne Darcy and Anna Land. But Darcy is head of nutrition in Davison's college's Cork branch, and Land is a graduate of the same institution. (Land is also a qualified PE teacher.)

In short, it enjoys the robust and unbiased accreditation of a current lecturer and a former pupil.

"If you have any questions you'd like to put to me, just get in touch!" - Rosanna Davison

Where could I possibly start? Do you feel your degree is valid and beneficial? Are you happy to have raised the profile of an organisation that opposes vaccination? Do you feel there's merit to iridology, homeopathy and the energy fields of Himalayan rock salts? If you answered no to any of these questions, why on earth did you do it?

I had not planned on buying "Eat Yourself Beautiful". Authors typically earn 10% of the cover price of hardbacks; at €20 my purchase would include a regrettable two Euro contribution to the coffers of an opponent of modern medical care. I've resolved this conflict with a mitigating €20 donation to Arthritis Ireland in recognition of their strong response to Davison's piffle that gluten causes arthritis.

"... the drugs of modern medicine, they tend to cover up any issues or symptoms rather than get to the source of the problem." - Page 2

We need venture no further than page two before finding the first assault upon reality. Do you recall that time you got Polio? No, you do not, for modern medicine has vanquished it in all areas that do not have armed vaccination opponents. When was a diagnosis of tetanus last accompanied by advice to get one's affairs in order? Not in living memory. Those of us fortunate enough to have access to modern medical care and smart enough to use it enjoy a quality of life unrivaled throughout history in both quality and length. Tuberculosis, smallpox, polio, diphtheria and pertussis - once sources of quite a considerable number of health problems - find themselves silent when called up on to support Davison's thesis. A cover up seems unlikely.

What sparks this antipathy towards medicine? Davison holds with unwarranted pride a degree of sorts in Nutrition from the College of Naturopathic Medicine. It runs conferences on the 'risks' of vaccination. The course is 'accredited' in Ireland by the Irish Association of Nutritional Therapy, a group founded by one of the college's lecturers and a PE teacher who graduated the course. This arrangement calls to mind a trip to the principal's office to explain why my signature so closely matched that of my mother's on a secondary school sick note.

The college itself is founded by Hermann Keppler, a man who believes that Himalayan rock salt contains crystals whose vibrations can cleanse the canny consumer of exposure to WiFi and other electromagnetic fields. His specialties include dispensing magical water under the label of homeopathy and diagnosing your inflamed organs by gazing into your iris, a folklore he refers to as iridology. Seeking medical advice from a graduate of his tutelage is akin to drawing up your maps with the help of the flat earth society. For those interested, I wrote more on the group here.

This background in mind we return to the book at section one.

"Enormous bodies of scientific research now show us that the power to live your whole life free from modern lifestyle diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes starts on your plate" - Page 10

Many citation styles are open to the budding author. Documentary note citations would work well in this book. Parenthetical references could be a mite formal but still welcome. There are of course offshoots. Faced with the diversity of approaches available to her, Davison opts to not bother, frequently making claims that will have your jaw drop low enough to accommodate a full bushel of quinoa. Note how smoothly cancer is branded a lifestyle disease, and imagine how such blaming might affect those impacted by it.

The 'enormous bodies of scientific research' seem too slight to warrant mention, but some light discussion follows in the following paragraphs that gives us a lead.

"In 1995, Dr Caldwell Esselstyn published his benchmark long-term nutrition study that showed that heart disease in severely ill patients could be halted and reversed by putting them on a low-fat, whole foods, plant-based diet. It demonstrated the self-healing power of the human body under ideal conditions. Since natural medicine is so effective at preventing disease rather than just suppressing symptoms, as modern medicine tends to do, I firmly believe that there is a great need for natural medicine to become more widespread than conventional medicine."

A source! A source! My kingdom for a source! When you've read through a few unevidenced assertions that beetroot cleanses blood (page 180) the presence of a name and a hint of an actual study quickens the heart. True, the study isn't named, but we have enough to go on.

Let us take a moment to examine Esselstyn's 'benchmark' work that we might learn how heart disease can be halted and reversed. Commencing in 1985 it consisted of 22 participants and no control group. They all took cholesterol lowering medication, a glaring omission from Davison's quest to paint real medicine as a mere masking of symptoms. Of the 22 only six continued the diet for the ten year duration; hardly a useful sample size. You may wish to read the abstract.

What can we conclude from this? That cholesterol lowering medication and changes in diet can lower cholesterol, so therefore medication only hides symptoms? Davison's conclusion is further weakened when we see that Esselstyn allowed skimmed milk and yoghurt in his diet but forbade any oils or avocados. Davison does not explain why her plan disagrees with him in these areas.

"The powerful medicinal properties of a huge array of herbs have been used for centuries by Native American (35-40), Roman (20-30), Persian, Egyptian (40) and Hebrew (30-35) cultures." Page 38

To help the reader I have included in brackets the average life expectancy of each culture.

Is this among the systems Davison wishes to 'become more widespread than conventional medicine'?

"There are more natural therapies gaining respect in mainstream medicine now than ever before, as it is clear that scientific evidence of the efficiency [sic - efficacy? - Geoff] of natural medicine is solid." Page 10-11

This is untrue and I question how any editor could allow ink assault paper in such a depraved manner without leaping to its defence. At the very least, seeing such mortal wounds inflicted on the page they should have had the decency to put it out of its misery.

Meat, Wheat, And Other Things Not To Eat

"Just imagine the heat in our intestines and what must happen to the meat a human eats as it slowly moves through that long digestive tract. It begins to putrefy and rot, allowing harmful toxins and acidic by-products to leak into the bloodstream." Page 12

There are well thought out ethical grounds for vegetarianism and veganism, but Davison's pseudoscientific reasons for eschewing meat will only hurt such a movement. Meat rotting in our intestines would be an interesting feat considering at this stage it has been dissolved in our stomach.

"...according to research [gluten] can lead to health conditions like arthritis, depression, eczema and psoriasis." - Page 28

Living through depression? Blame the pizza. Arthritis? Perhaps you shouldn't have had that pint. Davison has been asked by various doctors, researchers and experts to supply the research she promises but as with so many of the novel claims in this book it seems not to exist.

Few of us would wish to dissuade our fellow citizens from devoting a little more thought to the nutritional content of their meals. Some have told me that as long as the book forces someone to choke down an occasional apple it will do more good than harm. But is this the case? There's much one could say in favour of legumes, for example, but Davison asks us to eschew the convenience of tinned goods (she says - absent explanation - that tinned goods contain 'chemicals') in favour of hand soaking the little blighters the night before. I can barely make time to floss. I will not be planning my kidney beans days in advance.

"It's important to choose organic produce as much as possible, as the soil it has been grown in remains rich in the important minerals you need. Organic fruit and veggies have been enabled to grow and develop as nature intended rather than being ripened artificially before they're naturally ready. This means that they're chemical free...

While pesticides are intended to kill insects, many of them are actually absorbed into our air, soil, water or food supply...

It's essential to wash non-organic fruit and vegetables really well..."

I'm not sure from which angle to best tackle this Gordian knot of nonsense. Starting from the bottom up, you should wash all fruit and veg. Your organic tubers were likely grown in cow poop. Organic vegetables are not rendered immune from contamination with serious diseases. The implication that washing is less necessary is a dangerous one. Pesticides aren't intended to kill insects, they're intended to kill pests, including fungi, bacteria, insects and weeds. And organic farmers use them too, rotenone and pyrethrin being two examples. It's bordering on illiterate to suggest that fruits and vegetables of any sort don't contain chemicals. Organic farmers do artificially ripen crops. I find it hard to pluck a correct statement from this section designed to push folks to unnecessarily expensive fruit and vegetables, despite there being no evidence that organic branded food is more nutritious.

By this stage of the book we have seen dairy demonised, meat maligned, we have been warned off wheat, cautioned against cans and swayed to organic outlets. Far from encouraging a varied diet the advice in this book is profoundly limiting. The resulting message is that healthy eating is the preserve of those who live within walking distance of an organic market and have the sort of disposable time on their hands that allows much of the evenings to be spent bathing legumes. If you have a day job and enjoy the benefits of modern medicine this may not be the recipe book for you.

(note: this review is also posted on Amazon. Feel free to join the discussion.)

I am old. Not quite old enough to be offered seats on public transport, but old enough to have finished secondary school in the last millennium. At 35 it seems I'm at the opening stages of middle age. There is much to recommend it.

One part of growing up in the eighties and nineties is memories of what we euphemistically called 'the troubles'. Bombings. Punishment beatings. Attacks that killed children. Kangaroo courts convicting mothers of being informants and not even allowing their children the dignity of a burial. The protection of pederasts. This was the context in which I learned of Sinn Féin and it has left me with something of a bias.

But a bias is not a thing to celebrate. In the comfortable safety of Dublin I was never directly affected by terrorist groups in Northern Ireland, and I recognise that many who suffered greatly have chosen to prioritise their region's future and work with former enemies. I admire their strength.

Calling this to mind I'm trying to evaluate Sinn Féin on the commitments made in the flyer I received from their canvasser and his wider comments. I'm fortunate in that I need only look north to see how Sinn Féin perform in government. I'll be contrasting their pledges for the Republic with their performance in Stormont to decide what preference to give them.

Below I write their commitments in bold and follow with comparisons to outcomes in Northern Ireland.

Increase the minimum wage to €9.65 an hour. By contrast the minimum wage in Northern Ireland is £6.70, or €8.67 at time of writing. The minimum wage in the Republic is €9.15, noticeably higher than up north.
End zero hour contracts. They have not done so in Northern Ireland. They did try.
Move to cap childcare fees by increasing creche capitation rates. Here it's instructive to contrast how Sinn Féin in government compares to England, Scotland and Wales. There's a full survey folks will likely find interesting, but a key table is worth including here. You'll find it on page 22. All regions receive comparable funding but by any measure Northern Ireland is the worst performer.

	Entitlement to free early education for three and four year olds	Entitlement to free early education for two year olds
England	570 hours per year for all three and four year olds, amounting to 15 hours per week over 38 weeks of the year	570 hours per year for the 40 per cent most income deprived two year olds and certain other groups such as looked after children
Northern Ireland	One year of part-time (12.5 hours per week) free early education for four year olds only, in the year before school and only during term-time	None
Scotland	600 hours per year for all three and four-year-olds	600 hours per year for children in workless households, extended in August 2015 to take in children in families receiving free school meals and other benefits such as Working Tax Credits. This will cover about 27 per cent of the age cohort
Wales	A minimum of 10 hours per week for all three and four year olds	Part-time free early education for 36,000 disadvantaged children living in deprived areas delivered through the Flying Start programme

Reduce the third level contribution by €500. Fees in Northern Ireland have a ceiling of 3,805. That's €4,924 at today's exchange rate. In the Republic the ceiling is €3,000, nearly two thousand euro cheaper than what Sinn Féin have delivered in government.
Abolish the property tax in year one. There is still a property tax in Northern Ireland.
Deliver 100,000 social and affordable homes. But homelessness is higher in Northern Ireland than here or in any other Sterling area.
Introduce legislation to limit interest rates that banks can charge. This hasn't happened in the North.
Increase spending on healthcare by 3.3 billion. The NI health budget is up 1% on last year. A 3.3 billion increase to the HSE budget would be roughly a 25% increase. The comparison between HSE and NHS should, of course, not be viewed as simple.
We will reduce class sizes. The Sinn Féin minister for education is cutting 1,500 teachers' jobs in Northern Ireland.
We will recruit 3,000 gardaí over our government term. But in Northern Ireland the police budget has been cut by more than £200 million over the past five years. Their numbers are below resilience level, there are no plans to recruit, and morale could not be lower.

I could be flippant and suggest that they are pursuing different goals north and south of the border, but that would be unproductive. Some say they are hamstrung by coalition with the DUP. If this is the case then it's a strong argument against voting for them - their best case is to be junior coalition partner to a more right wing party here, and if they can't make it work in the North there is little reason to believe they could do so on Kildare street.

Others have suggested that they are hamstrung by Westminster's budget. I'll agree that the economy of Northern Ireland is performing poorly and that they are dependent on wider UK funding, but this hardly recommends Sinn Féin. They are also the party who claimed vociferously and at some length that they could negotiate a better deal from the EU. If they cannot get a better deal from London, why think they could do so from Brussels?

Simon looked with satisfaction at the machines that charted his remaining health and dreamed of all that he would achieve in the afterlife.

His body had long since announced it would fail him and he was a man defined by contempt for failure. As each limb had atrophied, each organ wasted he had devised alternatives. Some were better, some worse, he clung to existence more from defiance of decay than joy in life.

His obsession brought wealth. Each time he cheated death he found a market eager to emulate his success. Every new prosthetic found applications in industries ranging from gaming to private militaries.

"What separates us from the beasts? Is it our opposable thumbs? Our fragile lower backs? Our eyes that see but a fraction of the spectrum of light? The bonds we forge in family? No. It is our ability to transcend these weaknesses of our current form."

"Is the spear not superior to the fist? Can we not rely on the written word with a thousand times more certainty than our corruptible memory? My heart served me adequately for the better part of a century before it gave in to the vicissitudes of biology. Its replacement bears no such weaknesses. It will last a hundred years, we produce a thousand units a month, each is identical, replacement is facile. But why stop with something so trivial, so unimportant as a heart?"

The voice that filled his chamber was not his in the ordinary sense. Generated from samples of great orators past it had been an indulgence of Simon's, its crafting taking significantly more time and creativity than a utilitarian drive would warrant. He watched the reporter as his prepared speech continued. Young. Nervous. He would not have allowed otherwise.

"Yes. Simone. The diminutive. apt. Like Simon. but less. Her work. Showed promise."

This voice was truly his. Clipped. Measured. Metered to the artificial rhythm of the ventilator that drove what remained of his lungs. He used it to buy time as his eyes flickered and jumped through the air, navigating lists of prepared speeches in search of one relevant to this digression. If his face still expressed emotion it would have registered boredom.

"Throughout history man has sought to escape the limitations of the human form. He has used tools to amplify his labour, built libraries of knowledge far exceeding the capacity of any one individual, and committed his ideas to future generations. In that time he has also learned to delegate his work so that the feeble capacities of his being can be expanded. We see this in the taming of the wolf for its enhanced abilities to hunt and track, the horse, for its strength as a beast of burden, and also in how those of greatness have been able to adapt others to serve as extensions of their will. It is by this distribution of effort and ambition that mankind has come to this precipice of this final stage of evolution - freedom from the human form itself."

The reporter did not make notes. Everything Simon said was recorded, both his modes of speech transcribed and available for download from the room's exit. It had been made clear that deviation would have career limiting consequences. Questions rose, crashed against the intimidating room, and retreated without gaining voice. Simon's database of prepared speeches was not accessible outside his custom interface but it seemed clear that none spoke of the human warmth he had once expressed when first facing death.

That would be the final reporter to hear his breath form words. In keeping with his final wishes Simon did not have a funeral. The body that had failed him was burned and disposed of, unmarked, with the rest of the facility's waste. The few who wished to mourn him were denied the chance - more metal than flesh at his end, Simon viewed his organic death as a welcome change in state and did not entertain other opinions.

Simone closed the door on his new form, steadying her hand for the final click. His victory over death had only amplified his arrogance and further banished the vestiges of the heart they had once shared. She spent the next minute focused on three long breaths to will her heart rate down. From her phone she connected to a hidden server farm, access protected by her very DNA, capable only of sending images and sound.

It had been expensive but she needed speed unlike anything conceived before. And its reliability was a matter of many lives. Her investment, her life's savings, had secured a thousand and twenty four cells which formed humanity's first virtual prison. Inside each one an identical copy of Simon awoke, immortal, sentient, and utterly alone.

She smiled.

Prominent Fluoridation Opponents Enjoy Drinking Fluoridated Water

On The Grave Injustice Of Marriage Equality

Fringe Catholic Group Issues Statement Opposing Marriage Equality

The Price Of Love

Marriage Opponents and the Mexican Standoff

Seeking Any Reasons to Limit Marriage

They Do Not Care About The Children

@Mandate_2015 and Bad #MarRef Arguments of Biblical Proportions

Sodom, Begorrah

Leviticus

Evidence

Some New Testament Commentary

#marref: What Would Fionn Mac Cumhaill's Mothers Say?

On Why A Consistent Mothers And Fathers Matter Would Oppose American Marriages

A Taste of Sincerely Held Beliefs

It Takes A Village To Raise A Child

On The Importance Of Gender Roles And Hysterical Silly Little Bitches

Confessions of a Recovering Homophobe

Identity Ireland Twitter Stats

Seven Reasons Not To Join CrossFit Ireland

Rosanna Davison - Eat Yourself Wootiful

Rosanna Davison's Eat Yourself Beautiful: Hard To Swallow

On Voting Sinn Féin In #GE16

The Master Copy