Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

13468921

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    efb wrote: »
    unfortunately a lot do, mostly the poor, strangely, giving all their money to keep princes in their gold palaces while their families starve, and like Hotel California, you can never leave...

    Mostly the poor? The Middle Class Middle Irelander's are not too far behind either. Not even one down the country is poor, A church would not go far, if most of its congregation was financially poor.

    Relevancy. Grand, I suppose you will not be using Roman Catholic Church for your funeral or other special occasions?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    So basically a young black child in America in the 60's never had to deal with racism?

    Not sure i am seeing the validity of the argument.



    Please show me where i have taken a post out of context.

    Also, how is simply wanting a poster to post what they mean childish?

    If Father Damo repeatedly states that he is "done" in the thread, yet keeps coming back to post...it shows me that he lacks the strength of his convictions which i then consider while reading his posts about homidical teenagers.

    I never said black children didn't face racism. I asked was it fair to expect children to fight for the rights of their parents. I also said that there was no point comparing it to race issues. A child can't choose his colour but there is an absolute choice when it comes to placing a child with same sex couples.

    Your attachment to damos use of the phrase homicidal homophobia when he clearly didn't mean it as an actual intent to murder homosexual children but as a metaphorical gauge as to the level of homophobia in teenagers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    The number one issue among Christian leaders these days seems to be homosexuality and same sex marriage.

    You’d think, if it is as important to God as these people suggest, it would be mentioned more in the bible.
    Every second paragraph would be; “and lads, knock that gay shoite on the head. It gives me the heebie jeebies.”


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    MagicSean wrote: »
    I never said black children didn't face racism. I asked was it fair to expect children to fight for the rights of their parents. I also said that there was no point comparing it to race issues. A child can't choose his colour but there is an absolute choice when it comes to placing a child with same sex couples.

    Your attachment to damos use of the phrase homicidal homophobia when he clearly didn't mean it as an actual intent to murder homosexual children but as a metaphorical gauge as to the level of homophobia in teenagers.

    Not the choice of the child. Its the same argument, your essentially saying black people shouldnt have kids because they might face discrimination. There is a choice in both cases and it lies with the parent having a kid that may face discrimination.

    And they are not fighting for their parents rights they have a right to grow up in a loving home and not to be bullied because of the ignorance of others. If they are bullied for whatever reason then the bullies are the cause of it and should be disciplined.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    MagicSean wrote: »
    I never said black children didn't face racism. I asked was it fair to expect children to fight for the rights of their parents. I also said that there was no point comparing it to race issues. A child can't choose his colour but there is an absolute choice when it comes to placing a child with same sex couples.

    So children can choose their parents?

    Or do you mean there is an absolutely choice that is not down to the child...so the race issue is actually quite valid as either way the child doesn't have a choice.
    Your attachment to damos use of the phrase homicidal homophobia when he clearly didn't mean it as an actual intent to murder homosexual children but as a metaphorical gauge as to the level of homophobia in teenagers.

    Once again, how is this taking it out of context...as your argument seems to be that Father Damo didn't mean it in the context he said it and you have an issue with me for taking it within the context it was posted?

    Surely you are the one taking it out of context in order to infer that a simple word like homicidal doesn't actually mean to kill, murder, of deadly...all of which have fairly obvious meaning.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    MungBean wrote: »
    Not the choice of the child. Its the same argument, your essentially saying black people shouldnt have kids because they might face discrimination. There is a choice in both cases and it lies with the parent having a kid that may face discrimination.

    And they are not fighting for their parents rights they have a right to grow up in a loving home and not to be bullied because of the ignorance of others. If they are bullied for whatever reason then the bullies are the cause of it and should be disciplined.

    They are fighting for their parents right to be allowed adopt as a same sex couple. The child is the one being put on the frontline of this battle. The choice to put them there is one that we make for them. We can choose to send them there with straight parents or gay parents. We make the choice for them. That is where the absolute choice is.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 58 ✭✭Rob Nulty


    But what happens when the child is bold and the teacher calls for his Mam and Dad? Does one of them dress up as a woman?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    So children can choose their parents?

    Or do you mean there is an absolutely choice that is not down to the child...so the race issue is actually quite valid as either way the child doesn't have a choice.

    In the case of an adopted child we choose who will be their parent for them. We have the absolute choice in this. This is in no way related to race.
    Once again, how is this taking it out of context...as your argument seems to be that Father Damo didn't mean it in the context he said it and you have an issue with me for taking it within the context it was posted?

    Surely you are the one taking it out of context in order to infer that a simple word like homicidal doesn't actually mean to kill, murder, of deadly...all of which have fairly obvious meaning.

    It is obvious to anyone that he did not mean anyone would be murdered in a literal sense. I can't make you see that if you can't already.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,920 ✭✭✭Daith


    Rob Nulty wrote: »
    But what happens when the child is bold and the teacher calls for his Mam and Dad? Does one of them dress up as a woman?

    Yes, after hopping into a time machine to the 1960s apparently.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    MagicSean wrote: »
    It is obvious to anyone that he did not mean anyone would be murdered in a literal sense. I can't make you see that if you can't already.

    So you mean, had i taken his comment out of context, i would see that.

    But as i took his comment in context, i don't?

    It should be noted after i called him on his use of the word homicidal and implication of murder, he then backtracked and stated that kids of gay parents would kill themselves.

    Do you think he really meant that...or was it a metaphor for something else?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    So you mean, had i taken his comment out of context, i would see that.

    But as i took his comment in context, i don't?

    Sure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    MagicSean wrote: »
    Sure.

    So then why did you tell me i took his comment out of context...as you now agree i took his comment within the context that it was framed in?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    So then why did you tell me i took his comment out of context...as you now agree i took his comment within the context that it was framed in?

    I'm not agreeing. I'm just not really interested in arguing this particular issue with you because I don't see the point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    later10 wrote: »
    You mean that they enforced their movement as being the only true source of moral philosophy or outlook?

    Yes, I do know that.

    The point is not that the 20th century totalitarians were religious, the point is that the Roman Catholic Church embodies many of the totalitarian characteristics of a 20th century regime.
    My bad, I was just back form the pub when I replied last night and having read back on your post I see you never suggested that all 20th-century authoritarian regimes were religious in nature.

    Having said that, I think the statement -
    I firmly believe that the Papacy is the last great inheritor of the Totalitarian legacy.

    - is taking it a bit far. OK, there's no denying that it's an authoritarian institution. The Catechism is the only way to understand God; no room for personal opinion or interpretation, the Church has the final say on everything. It is pretty shocking how many a la carte Catholics - most of whom are, in reality, Protestants, non-denominational Christians or simply wishy-washy spiritualists - don't seem to realise this. But the fact that said cultural Catholics can go about blithely ignoring the parts of Catholic doctrine that don't fit in with their worldview suggests to me that that the Church isn't exactly subjugating its followers with an iron fist. It might have been a fair accusation 60 years ago when we lived in a de facto theocracy, where the Church held sway in all areas of society, children were brutalised with no hope of recourse till decades later, and young women were sent off to gulags for the sin of giving birth out of wedlock.

    Surely the bona fide theocracies in the middle east, who enshrine in law their religious dogma and enforce it brutally, would be closer in nature to past totalitarian states than an aging organisation that is clearly crumbling in its former centre of power, Europe?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    How in the fcuk can I come up with that? You could probably count on your fingers the amount of gay headed families in Ireland, and most of them are from under 10 years.

    I'm Gay - and the head of a family consisting of a 27 year old son, a 5 1/2 year old grandddaughter and a 2 1/2 year old grandson and I live in Ireland.

    So that's one right there that's been around longer then 10 years.

    Lets see - off the top of my head just among people I know in Cork - never mind Ireland there's

    2. C & J with daughter aged 14.
    3. F & D with daughter aged 25 and new born (2 weeks old awwww!) granddaughter
    4. S & M with 3 sons aged 19 and 17 and 15
    5. T & K with daughter aged 21 and son aged 13
    6. M & R with daughter aged 28, son aged 30 plus granddaughter aged 9 and grandson aged 6.
    7. R and N with daughter aged 11
    8. B & J with daughter aged 12
    9. E & T with 2 daughters and 1 son aged 23 (triplets!) plus 1 year old granddaugher
    10. R & S with son aged 14.

    Now that's just people I know personally, all living in Cork who had their children with their Gay partners more then 10 years ago.

    If I was to count those with children under 10 I'd be here all day.

    If I was to add those who live in the other 25 counties who had children over 10, I'd be here til the weekend

    If I was then to add those who live in the other 25 counties and had children under 10 I'd be here til the weekend after

    If I was to then add those families headed by a 'Gay' whose children were born within a previous heterosexual marriage I'd be here til Easter and neither a pot would get washed nor a baby dried.

    And those are just the people I know personally (and I'm an anti-social sod).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Mostly the poor? The Middle Class Middle Irelander's are not too far behind either. Not even one down the country is poor, A church would not go far, if most of its congregation was financially poor.

    Relevancy. Grand, I suppose you will not be using Roman Catholic Church for your funeral or other special occasions?

    my funeral is a special occasion? any who unless I die before my mum, no.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,944 ✭✭✭fedor.2.


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I'm Gay - and the head of a family consisting of a 27 year old son, a 5 1/2 year old grandddaughter and a 2 1/2 year old grandson and I live in Ireland.

    So that's one right there that's been around longer then 10 years.

    Lets see - off the top of my head just among people I know in Cork - never mind Ireland there's

    2. C & J with daughter aged 14.
    3. F & D with daughter aged 25 and new born (2 weeks old awwww!) granddaughter
    4. S & M with 3 sons aged 19 and 17 and 15
    5. T & K with daughter aged 21 and son aged 13
    6. M & R with daughter aged 28, son aged 30 plus granddaughter aged 9 and grandson aged 6.
    7. R and N with daughter aged 11
    8. B & J with daughter aged 12
    9. E & T with 2 daughters and 1 son aged 23 (triplets!) plus 1 year old granddaugher
    10. R & S with son aged 14.

    Now that's just people I know personally, all living in Cork who had their children with their Gay partners more then 10 years ago.

    If I was to count those with children under 10 I'd be here all day.

    If I was to add those who live in the other 25 counties who had children over 10, I'd be here til the weekend

    If I was then to add those who live in the other 25 counties and had children under 10 I'd be here til the weekend after

    If I was to then add those families headed by a 'Gay' whose children were born within a previous heterosexual marriage I'd be here til Easter and neither a pot would get washed nor a baby dried.

    And those are just the people I know personally (and I'm an anti-social sod).



    LoL at number 4, ye crazy gheys:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    MagicSean wrote: »
    They are fighting for their parents right to be allowed adopt as a same sex couple. The child is the one being put on the frontline of this battle. The choice to put them there is one that we make for them. We can choose to send them there with straight parents or gay parents. We make the choice for them. That is where the absolute choice is.

    They are not fighting for anything but their own rights to be left alone. Just as any other child who gets bullied or picked on for something they personally had no control over. Whether its being the adopted child of two gay men, having glasses, red hair or being big for their age. They do nothing only try to get by and deal with whats in front of them. The problem is with the bullies and their parents who need to take responsibility for the wrongful behaviour.

    There is choice in creating the environment for any child. Would you deprive a child of better sight because he may be bullied for wearing glasses or die their hair if it was ginger ? No you wouldnt, you would accept the risk as being inevitable given the way kids are and you dont limit the childs rights instead of limiting the wrongful actions of others. You give the child every opportunity to live a good and healthy life and that should include a good home with loving parents who will raise them to be good people.

    You shouldnt limit the childs opportunities because of the possible actions of others when those actions are wrong. If another child cannot interact in a normal manner without being abusive and/or violent then that other child needs to be educated in how to interact appropriately or removed from the environment. To deprive a child of the best possible home for them in regards to being loved, cared for and given opportunities because of the ignorance of others isnt right.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Check my first post in this thread. Moronic arguement.

    Moronic is a term which was used years ago to describe people who possessed the mental age of a child.

    In a debate, there is nothing more childish than to insult someone else's point of view rather than argue you own point, so it's highly ironic that you chose the word 'moronic' in an effort to dismiss my argument.

    Even more ironic then that you went on to misspell the word 'argument'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    What level of bullying? You can kick a kid out of school for giving the kid a beating. You cant kick kids out of school because they refuse completely to sit beside or interact with the kid. In a country like Ireland its a pretty unfair burden to put on a kid just so too adults can be happy.
    It's highly unusual for a kid to not interact with someone because of the other person's parents marital status. I was bullied in school and it had absolutely nothing to do with my parent's marital status.I really couldn't see anyone having a major issue over the person having gay couple as parents. If gay adoptions were legalised, it would become socially accepted fairly quickly. As long as bigoted parents or popes weren't teaching them rubbish about it being an abomination. As long as ignorant viewpoints aren't pushed as fact, it would be highly unlikely for it to be an issue. By your logic black people should not adopt, sure protestants probably shouldn't be allowed either and single parent's children should be put up for adoption. :D
    By the way, I couldn't care less if I were raised by gay parents or any other demographic as long as they raised me well and with a bit of common sense. I should mention that there were people that were gay since my early years in school who never got slagged. Perhaps your mindset is more like that of a caveman than any of the fourteen year olds I knew.I do consider Ireland to be rather progressive for the most part in the past few years however organisations like the RCC are really of no benefit to the country at this point.
    I also think homophobia would become far less of an issue adoption was allowed. Ohh by the way, you do know a gay man was favourite to become president of Ireland for most of last year?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    It's the same type argument seen in the Divorce Referenda here in the 80's and 90's, the natural, good Catholic family will be weakened, what will happen society? That scare mongering worked in the 80's and came very damn bloody close in 1995.

    Now in thousands of classes up and down the country single parent and separated families are the majority. A few probably see that as a break down in society, most people see it as society evolving and recognising reality. Social Conservatives like David Quinn think single parenting is part of social breakdown so naturally gay marriage is incomprehensible, they don't even think about it, it's just wrong, against the natural order of things.

    It comes down to the parents. If people raise their kids to be a racist bigot like them or raise them to think being a child of a single parent family automatically means scum, of course they'll generally be bullies. All the social barriers are getting broken down. Bullying will always exist in some form or another, the important thing is to teach them how to deal with it, a skill I'm sure gay parents have the same as hetro couples.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,643 ✭✭✭Father Damo


    DarkJager wrote: »
    A deeply religious country in case you didn't know. So yeah, when this asshole and others like him portray contraception as being evil, these people tend to listen.

    No.

    He is saying condom use is immoral.
    He is saying promiscuity is immoral.

    And then people think Aids is being spread because people in Africa are hanging on his every word and not using condoms....whilst simultanousely ignoring his rules about shagging around?

    Words fail me.

    Ive been asked 3 times to quit this thread now. Being wrong is clearly too hard for folk :) Good night.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade



    He is saying condom use is immoral.
    He is saying promiscuity is immoral.


    Which make him a fucking idiot.

    He is also the head of a very powerful organisation.

    Which makes him a very dangerous fucking idiot.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    QUOTE] Originally Posted by DarkJager
    A deeply religious country in case you didn't know. So yeah, when this asshole and others like him portray contraception as being evil, these people tend to listen. [/QUOTE]

    No.

    He is saying condom use is immoral.
    He is saying promiscuity is immoral.




    Words fail me.

    Noun 1. sexual immorality - the evil ascribed to sexual acts that violate social conventions;

    Perhaps your words are failing you due to the fact that you do not appear to be using them correctly. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭IrishJack89


    Its not exactly a threat because its not like the whole world is gonna turn gay, would 5% be a reasonable estimated statisic? In saying that I don't agree with it, not a homophobe but I just can't see how people can be homosexuals. I personally think homosexuality is completely based entirely on one been a nympho. Sorry to offend people but whenever you see a gay couple they always go over board with the whole lovey dovey stuff and reckon its probably easier for a homosexual to get sex then a straight person(without oaying that is) hence the rise of the homosexual...


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Its not exactly a threat because its not like the whole world is gonna turn gay, would 5% be a reasonable estimated statisic? In saying that I don't agree with it, not a homophobe but I just can't see how people can be homosexuals. I personally think homosexuality is completely based entirely on one been a nympho. Sorry to offend people but whenever you see a gay couple they always go over board with the whole lovey dovey stuff and reckon its probably easier for a homosexual to get sex then a straight person(without oaying that is) hence the rise of the homosexual...

    Obviously someone has never heard of Lesbian bed death :rolleyes:

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Its not exactly a threat because its not like the whole world is gonna turn gay, would 5% be a reasonable estimated statisic? In saying that I don't agree with it, not a homophobe but I just can't see how people can be homosexuals. I personally think homosexuality is completely based entirely on one been a nympho. Sorry to offend people but whenever you see a gay couple they always go over board with the whole lovey dovey stuff and reckon its probably easier for a homosexual to get sex then a straight person(without oaying that is) hence the rise of the homosexual...

    Sweet jesus let this be a troll post.


  • Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭IrishJack89


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Obviously someone has never heard of Lesbian bed death :rolleyes:

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

    I have now and courteousy of ur link I've found out now that Lesbian bed death is a popular myth! Obviously there must have been disbelief so they had to prove that lesbian couples are at it like rabbits :)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I have now and courteousy of ur link I've found out now that Lesbian bed death is a popular myth! Obviously there must have been disbelief so they had to prove that lesbian couples are at it like rabbits :)

    We-re-having-hot-lesbian-sex-95802932

    We're having hot lesbian sex,and by "lesbian sex" we mean tea. But it's still hot.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭IrishJack89


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    We-re-having-hot-lesbian-sex-95802932

    We're having hot lesbian sex,and by "lesbian sex" we mean tea. But it's still hot.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/71381590@N00/2707771070/


Advertisement