Homophobia

aoibhebree · 20-03-2009 3:33pm

oeb wrote: »

Do you think any hetrosexual couple can walk off a street into an orphinage and say "Hey, I'll take three babies please. Can I get one of them in black?" and walk away with a full family?
.

Only if their names are Brad and Angelina ...

Morzadec · 20-03-2009 3:37pm

'They will sometimes perform homosexual penetration of the blowhole, the only known example of nasal sex.'

Thought that was hilarious by the way! Nasal sex!

Genghiz Cohen · 20-03-2009 3:39pm

Lu Tze wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Papal infallibility does not affect my statement.

javaboy wrote: »

Not quite true. The whole infallibility thing is a bit more complicated than that. The Pope can still commit sin and be wrong etc. Only certain utterances fall under the infallibility rule.

Ah, I was only going on what I was taught in school, didn't go into much detail, but I though I had the gist of it.

Back to the church making mistakes, with an organisation that large and important, mistakes should never occur. Imagine if banks made a cock-up of everything!? Where would we be then?!

meganj · 20-03-2009 3:39pm

equal rights for gay people is not about getting married in a church. Or what the bloody catholic church thinks about it. It's about equal treatment. The catholic church does not make decisions or laws regarding married people and their treatment in the law. They are not entitled to tax breaks (like the rest of the married couples in the world) nor are they entitled to equal treatment.

It's not about the church it's about our goverment and the fact that gay couples aren't afforded equal rights it's a travesty that shows that the State and the Catholic church are inseperable. It's fine if the catholic church doesn't condone it and it's also fine if people believe that Gay and Lesbian people shouldn't marry but you can't base it on hte fact that it's morally wrong or gross. I know plenty of people that should never have gotten married but their still allowed do it simply because one of them has a pee-pee and the other has a vajayjay. It's ridonculous.

It's 2009 not 1509 and i firmly believe that people should be allowed marry whoever they damn well please without the church or the state sticking it's nose in.

javaboy · 20-03-2009 3:40pm

Morzadec wrote: »

'They will sometimes perform homosexual penetration of the blowhole, the only known example of nasal sex.'

Thought that was hilarious by the way! Nasal sex!

.

Peter Griffin wrote:

I'll tell you what it's not for. And when I do, you'll understand why I can never go back to Sea World.

TheZohanS · 20-03-2009 3:40pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

I personally think Gay ppl should never be allowed to marry. And i think the act itself is rather sick...

Did he propose to you?:)

turgon · 20-03-2009 3:43pm

One could argue that not allowing gay people to marry is a case of sexism against one or both of the parties involved.

As in Im not allowed marry a man only because Im a man. Thats discriminating against me due to my gender.

oisindoyle · 20-03-2009 3:57pm

RaverRo808 wrote: »

Personally,its in issue Im not bothered with,my view is behind closed doors,consenting adults should be allowed do what they want,its open displays of sexuality that annoy me,of any kind,and in the case of gays,unfortunately alot of them make a song and dance about being gay,and it just gives them a bad name,if you like to ride a man up the hole fine,but keep it to yourself and do it in the privacy of your own home

What exactly do you mean by "its open displays of sexuality that annoy me "in the case of gays,unfortunately alot of them make a song and dance about being gay,and it just gives them a bad name"???
What exctly do you mean ?If thats not a homophobic comment i dont know what is....
As ofr openly displays of sexuality ,,,thing is hetro couples do it all the time ,,,kiss cuddle hold hands in public ,,,,shocking isnt it .One person showing affection towards another,,,shocking indeed..
Who makes a song and dance about being gay ? I dont see it ? All I see is hetro couples being able to go through life without bigotted homophobic comments like yours thrown at them on a daily basis .

me-skywalker · 20-03-2009 3:57pm

pierrot wrote: »

Having read the thread straight through, it seems like almost everybody is rejecting the OP and defending the rights of gays with quite a lot of passion. If boards.ie is to be taken as a fairly varied slice through the demographic of modern Ireland, I say Yay Ireland!!!!

no i wouldnt take anything said on here to be anyway reliable or an insight into the thinking of the irish population like the way i wouldnt use the adrian kennedy phone show as one either.

Puddleduck wrote: »

Its a little arrogant of people to go on about being gay being 'unnatural' and completely dissasociating ourselfs from the animals. We all have animal urges. Thats fact. Some peoples urges are towards those of the same sex. To me that seems natural.

Also being gay is a 'sin' because the church makes it so. Having sex before marraige is also a sin but people pick and choose which sins should be adherred to.

no your using the word animals? when infact you mean instincts... natural, biological instincts....

Quint wrote: »

Would you 2 think it's ok for a 10 year old menstrating girl to have sex with a 60 year old man? The woman can have kids, the man can produce sperm, they can reproduce and most importantly "it's natural".

now that is just pure twisted and sick!!

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

OP Cliff Notes: I know some gay people so I can say what I like and be a judgemental, sexually repressed tool about them.

fine you do that you already have......try reading the whole thread next time.

useful_contacts wrote: »

But i bet you enjoy lesbian porn though

Hypicrote much?

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Homophobic people statistically have a 98.4% chance of being gay themselves and are merely trying to cover up their own flaming desires. Fact.

and thsi is facts from......... harry potter?

TheZohan wrote: »

Did he propose to you?:)

he did i rejected, broke his heart, now he's on boards posting under my name pretendin i dont like gay marriage

Sunn · 20-03-2009 4:00pm

After 11 pages I have still to see any sort of coherent argument as to why they should not be allowed to marry.

Me-skywalker has distanced himself from the traditional camps of "hate gays" but other than that he hasn't eluded or put forward any real reason.

oisindoyle · 20-03-2009 4:07pm

With regards to Me Skywalker .......Me thinks the Lady doth protests too much.

me-skywalker · 20-03-2009 4:12pm

Thing is nobdy tries to enter into any sort of coherent discussion anything that is said in any 'discussion' is all just flamed... trolled... rubbished.... or typo's pointed out... guess ill go back to work and pay all the welfare pundits bills

justcallmetex · 20-03-2009 4:12pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

it is isnt it?! cliched anti-post, try add somethign better than that.

Your a youg fella so you can be forgiven. Look forward to growing up a bit. Maybe you'll realise what other people decide to do in this short life is up to them and no concern of yours.

Sesudra · 20-03-2009 4:16pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

Thing is nobdy tries to enter into any sort of coherent discussion anything that is said in any 'discussion' is all just flamed... trolled... rubbished.... or typo's pointed out... guess ill go back to work and pay all the welfare pundits bills

you were asked earlier on by another poster what you thought of a civil union arrangement for gay couples,which didn't involve the Church or a religious service at all,purely a secular affair-would you be against that?i.e is your problem with any type of gay union or is it just with gay "marriage",in a religious sense?

oisindoyle · 20-03-2009 4:18pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

Thing is nobdy tries to enter into any sort of coherent discussion anything that is said in any 'discussion' is all just flamed... trolled... rubbished.... or typo's pointed out... guess ill go back to work and pay all the welfare pundits bills

There was plenty of coherent discussion but you kept comng back saying homosexuality is wrong and they are not born gay ect ect blah blah blah ....Take it from me kid ,,you need to grow up ,accept that homosexuality was here from the year dot and will always be here .Its part of life

Sleipnir · 20-03-2009 4:20pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

coherent discussion

me-skywalker wrote: »

Back centuries ago if gay ppl where persecuted the way jews where there wouldnt be as many as there woudl be today.

Does not compute.

justcallmetex · 20-03-2009 4:25pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

Thing is nobdy tries to enter into any sort of coherent discussion anything that is said in any 'discussion' is all just flamed... trolled... rubbished.... or typo's pointed out... guess ill go back to work and pay all the welfare pundits bills

Good on ya! No doubt your an indispensible asset to your employer as your clearly a genius!

oeb · 20-03-2009 4:25pm

Ass wrote: »

Hitler was rumoured to be a homosexual... just puttin' that out there.

OMG! Thank you for sharing this with us! I will now turnaround on my beliefs. Someone told a guy on the internet that hitler was gay. All gay people must be hitler! I think I finally get all this logic thing!

Ironé · 20-03-2009 4:27pm

Lu Tze wrote: »

How do we decide which of those animal urges are illegal/immoral in our society? There is no point in using the natural world as justifying behaviour.

Thanks Lu Tze - the 'it happens in nature' argument was one I had used in these type of debates before but you're right that can be used to argue against as well.

So how do we decide what is unacceptable or immoral in our society? I think a good rule of thumb is does it hurt or harm other people. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, gay marriage does not harm anyone. Not allowing a gay couple have the same legal rights as any other family does hurt people.

Whether any church/religion wants to allow gay marriage is a matter for themselves.

If you are uncomfortable with homosexuality that's ok, you don't have to like it but at least try and have tolerance and empathy.

Quint · 20-03-2009 4:28pm

humanji wrote: »

You're confusing morality with nature.

The 2 posters didn't mention morality. Purely the nature argument. That's why I said it. Thanks

Sunn · 20-03-2009 4:29pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

Thing is nobdy tries to enter into any sort of coherent discussion anything that is said in any 'discussion' is all just flamed... trolled... rubbished.... or typo's pointed out... guess ill go back to work and pay all the welfare pundits bills

Its up to you to try and defend your position, you did start the topic after all, having an argument that you don't agree with something isn't an argument at all, neither is "human nature". You have to show us that its true.

humanji · 20-03-2009 4:43pm

Quint wrote: »

The 2 posters didn't mention morality. Purely the nature argument. That's why I said it. Thanks

But why did you bring it up? One has nothing to do with the other.

Dudess · 20-03-2009 4:52pm

Why would a person choose to only have sex with/fancy/fall in love with members of their own sex when they really only fancy members of the opposite sex? (As if you can choose the last two anyway).
Why would a person choose to be gay when it means having to put up with a lot of sh1t and possibly living a lie?

The notion that a person would choose to be gay is extraordinarily idiotic.

And the nurture argument: what, in an everyday upbringing, could possibly nurture "gayness" in a person? My favourite is the notion that being raised by a same-sex couple will cause a child to become gay... Of course! Because as we all know, male-female couples only raise hetero children.

Lu Tze · 20-03-2009 4:52pm

Ironé wrote: »

Thanks Lu Tze - the 'it happens in nature' argument was one I had used in these type of debates before but you're right that can be used to argue against as well.

So how do we decide what is unacceptable or immoral in our society? I think a good rule of thumb is does it hurt or harm other people. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, gay marriage does not harm anyone. Not allowing a gay couple have the same legal rights as any other family does hurt people.

Whether any church/religion wants to allow gay marriage is a matter for themselves.

If you are uncomfortable with homosexuality that's ok, you don't have to like it but at least try and have tolerance and empathy.

How dare you bring logic and rationale to these hallowed halls of after hours! Be gone with you

BobTheBeat · 20-03-2009 4:55pm

Sesudra wrote: »

you were asked earlier on by another poster what you thought of a civil union arrangement for gay couples,which didn't involve the Church or a religious service at all,purely a secular affair-would you be against that?i.e is your problem with any type of gay union or is it just with gay "marriage",in a religious sense?

Valid point. I think this is the crux of the counter argument. Do you have an issue with a civil union affording a gay couple equal rights in the eyes of the government institutions? If so, what are your reasons?

humanji · 20-03-2009 4:56pm

Dudess wrote: »

Why would a person choose to only have sex with/fancy/fall in love with members of their own sex when they really only fancy members of the opposite sex? (As if you can choose the last two anyway).
Why would a person choose to be gay when it means having to put up with a lot of sh1t and possibly living a lie?

The notion that a person would choose to be gay is extraordinarily idiotic.

And the nurture argument: what, in an everyday upbringing, could possibly nurture "gayness" in a person? My favourite is the notion that being raised by a same-sex couple will cause a child to become gay... Of course! Because as we all know, male-female couples only raise hetero children.

Well I'm filled with self-loathing, so would probably do it to piss myself off.

Ironé · 20-03-2009 4:56pm

Lu Tze wrote: »

How dare you bring logic and rationale to these hallowed halls of after hours! Be gone with you

There I go ruining everything again

Lu Tze · 20-03-2009 4:59pm

Dudess wrote: »

And the nurture argument: what, in an everyday upbringing, could possibly nurture "gayness" in a person?

Panda spread

Quint · 20-03-2009 5:00pm

humanji wrote: »

But why did you bring it up? One has nothing to do with the other.

They seemed to think biologicaly being able to reproduce is the be all and end all of the argument. I was just pointing out that a 10 year old girl can reproduce with a 60 year old man. Which is obviously wrong in most peoples eyes. Therefore, being able to reproduce naturally doesn't mean everything.

Genghiz Cohen · 20-03-2009 5:16pm

Quint wrote: »

a 10 year old girl can reproduce

me-skywalker · 20-03-2009 5:21pm

bobmeaney wrote: »

Valid point. I think this is the crux of the counter argument. Do you have an issue with a civil union affording a gay couple equal rights in the eyes of the government institutions? If so, what are your reasons?

i have no problem if they want to enter into a contracual legal agreement called a 'civil union'... if that means they want to avail of the tax benefits afforded to cohabitating partners thats well and good, and the other associated legal matters; housing,earnings, responsibilites etc etc then well and good also...

but if thats the case then in its fundamental principle its just a legal matter and if ppl really dont care what other ppl think then surely a peice of paper is not going to change they way you feel about a person or your relationship with that person.

rjt · 20-03-2009 5:38pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

i have no problem if they want to enter into a contracual legal agreement called a 'civil union'... if that means they want to avail of the tax benefits afforded to cohabitating partners thats well and good, and the other associated legal matters; housing,earnings, responsibilites etc etc then well and good also...

So basically, you're fine with gay marriage, as long as instead of calling it mariage it's called a civil union?

me-skywalker wrote: »

but if thats the case then in its fundamental principle its just a legal matter and if ppl really dont care what other ppl think then surely a peice of paper is not going to change they way you feel about a person or your relationship with that person.

People get married for a lot of reasons other than religion. Why do atheists get married?

humanji · 20-03-2009 6:01pm

rjt wrote: »

Why do atheists get married?

Out of spite for the church.

Kimia · 20-03-2009 6:02pm

Skywalker - you have changed your 'opinions' constantly since starting this post.

Once minute you were against gay marraige and called being gay wrong and that everyone (including gay people who choose to be gay) are wrong and they know it! And now you are saying Ah sure it's grand - if they call it a civil union.

Make up your mind!!

"Mutability of temper and inconsistency with ourselves is the greatest weakness of human nature."
Joseph Addison (1672 - 1719)

Lu Tze · 20-03-2009 6:16pm

Kimia wrote: »

"Mutability of temper and inconsistency with ourselves is the greatest weakness of human nature."
Joseph Addison (1672 - 1719)

I really hope that at no point in his life Joseph Addison claimed that something else was "the greatest weakness of human nature"

20-03-2009 6:47pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

I personally think Gay ppl should never be allowed to marry. And i think the act itself is rather sick...

Stop fantasising about it then :rolleyes:

Or should ugly people be prevented from marrying too? Cop on.

philologos · 20-03-2009 6:50pm

oeb wrote: »

No, I don't see why. Gay marriage was outlawed in the 4c (I think) by one of the early christian roman emperors. The fact that gay people are not allowed to marry etc has it's roots almost entirly in religion.

Just because something happens in the past doesn't mean that it is right surely though? Wasn't bestiality legal in the Roman Empire too prior to Emperor Constantine? Personally I differ in my moral views to others, but I think that is fine. I disagree with gay marriage being legalised, that's rather different than hating homosexuals. Why would I hate anyone for disagreeing with me on the former? It's a bit absurd to suggest such. People are going to differ on what marriage is or isn't, suggesting that people are homophobic for doing so is merely stifling discussion.

Also it's up to the people to decide what type of country they want to live in. That's why Ireland is a constitutionally heavy state, and that we have referendums on decisions that are considered to be of national importance such as on abortion.

oeb wrote: »

Is it wrong for a single mother to bring up her child? Or does the fact that she might have a father, male friends, brothers and possibly boyfriends during that time make up for it?

No it doesn't make up for it at all. Single mothers have every right to bring up their children but it is best to raise children in a stable marriage surely? Lack of a father has been attributed to social problems.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED386284 would be just one report on such an understanding.

oeb wrote: »

It is much much more important for a child to be brought up in a secure enviroment by people that love them and look after them than it is that they have two parents (of whatever sex).

Indeed, in marriage. I would argue that children are best raised with both male and female rolemodels, which would have an impact on what kind of structure is best for a child.

rainbow kirby · 20-03-2009 7:04pm

OP makes me lose brain cells with the amount of bigoted crap he is spewing.

20-03-2009 7:11pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

OP makes me lose brain cells with the amount of bigoted crap he is spewing.

poster above ya may be a prime contender too

philologos · 20-03-2009 7:22pm

bluewolf wrote: »

poster above ya may be a prime contender too

How so? I disagree with gay marriage, yet that constitutes "bigotry"?

It's funny that the more liberally disposed people seem to call out the tolerance card, but are rather intolerant of people who actually disagree with their views.

How does disagreement with gay marriage constitute hatred of homosexuals?

Ironé · 20-03-2009 7:28pm

Jakkass wrote: »

How so? I disagree with gay marriage, yet that constitutes "bigotry"?

It's funny that the more liberally disposed people seem to call out the tolerance card, but are rather intolerant of people who actually disagree with their views.

How does disagreement with gay marriage constitute hatred of homosexuals?

So why do you disagree with gay marriage? You talk about children being raised by same sex parents. This has nothing to do with marriage. People can have children with out being married (sperm donors, surrogate parents).

If marriage is legal recognition of a relationship and all that goes with it: inheritance rights, tax etc. Would you have an objection and why?

thelordofcheese · 20-03-2009 7:29pm

I simply cannot comprehend why anyone would be ok with isolating a paticular group of people and saying "hey, you lot. You don't get to have the same rights as everyone else because of your partner is the same gender as you".

no matter how you dress it up, it's still worng.

Hydroquinone · 20-03-2009 7:30pm

Kimia wrote: »

Skywalker - you have changed your 'opinions' constantly since starting this post.

You've seen his sig, have you?

'What we don't understand we can make mean anything.'

He's living up to it and no mistake.

philologos · 20-03-2009 7:35pm

Ironé wrote: »

So why do you disagree with gay marriage? You talk about children being raised by same sex parents. This has nothing to do with marriage. People can have children with out being married (sperm donors, surrogate parents).

Our Constitution states the following:

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Marriage and the family are closely related in reality. Encouraging stable family units with a mother and a father is the optimal for a child.

Ironé wrote: »

If marriage is legal recognition of a relationship and all that goes with it: inheritance rights, tax etc. Would you have an objection and why?

I don't have an issue with civil partnership, however I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are both different things.

me-skywalker · 20-03-2009 7:36pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

OP makes me lose brain cells with the amount of bigoted crap he is spewing.

im not a bigot! im not intolerant to peoples belvies and im very open minded to listening to ppl but while i dont hate homosexual people i dont agree with gay marriage.

20-03-2009 7:37pm

Jakkass wrote: »

How so? I disagree with gay marriage, yet that constitutes "bigotry"?

No.

/pat

me-skywalker · 20-03-2009 7:41pm

Kimia wrote: »

Skywalker - you have changed your 'opinions' constantly since starting this post.

Once minute you were against gay marraige and called being gay wrong and that everyone (including gay people who choose to be gay) are wrong and they know it! And now you are saying Ah sure it's grand - if they call it a civil union.

Make up your mind!!

"Mutability of temper and inconsistency with ourselves is the greatest weakness of human nature."
Joseph Addison (1672 - 1719)

no i havnt ive said i dont agree with gay marraige and ive consitently said that... there is a differnce between 'civil union' and marriage and thats were you dont understand..

Hydroquinone wrote: »

You've seen his sig, have you?

'What we don't understand we can make mean anything.'

He's living up to it and no mistake.

as for my sig.. its very true for most of the posts here too.. whats your opinion or do you not have one and rather someone else make it up for you?

Ironé · 20-03-2009 7:43pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Our Constitution states the following:

Marriage and the family are closely related in reality. Encouraging stable family units with a mother and a father is the optimal for a child.

I don't have an issue with civil partnership, however I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are both different things.

Why is a family necessarily a mother and father and children? I have no children but am married and consider us a family. My friend is a single parent - she considers herself and her children a family. There is nothing unstable about either of our situations.

If its about stability shouldn't we encourage families with same sex parents to marry?

And really what is the difference between civil partnership and marriage anyway?

Dudess · 20-03-2009 7:43pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

im not a bigot! im not intolerant to peoples belvies and im very open minded to listening to ppl but while i dont hate homosexual people...

You've said a huge amount to contradict that. Fine. You may be tolerant when it comes to everything else, but you're extremely narrowminded when it comes to homosexuality. Saying "if that's how I feel, that's how I feel" doesn't wash really... you need to put yourself in their shoes and consider what life must be like for them with attitudes like yours.

Ironé · 20-03-2009 7:45pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

there is a differnce between 'civil union' and marriage and thats were you dont understand..

Maybe you could explain what that difference is?

Homophobia

Comments