Gay Marriage

walrusgumble · 24-01-2014 12:57pm

Colm R wrote: »

To be frank, I'm not looking forward to it as much as you are.

Any constructive opposition to this referendum will be drowned out by, what I think will be complete and often dangerous hatred. For a mature, happy homosexual person, they will most likely take this on the chin.

But every gay person at some point in their lives needs to come to the conclusion that they are gay, and unfortunately for many, that can be dark and lonely time in their lives. And at the time of the referendum campaign, many will be going through that time.

I would hope that the referendum is short. I hope arguments for and against are lawful (inciting hatred is illegal as far as I am aware). I hope the referendum passes. And if it does pass, I hope it helps gay people, particularly young gay people, that for a referendum to pass, a majority of straight people will have voted for it.

Define Incitment to Hatred, in this context

walrusgumble · 24-01-2014 1:04pm

Godge wrote: »

There is no logical secular argument against SSM. Any that might be put up such as best for the children, social anarchy, inheritance tax, etc. can be easily demolished or are capable of being sorted through simple legislation.

However, in the same way that a Muslim might campaign for compulsory wearing of the hijab or for women to be banned from driving, Catholics (and other religions) might argue that it is against their religion so they will vote against it. In this case you have competing rights. You have the right of Catholics to believe and practice and promulgate their religion and you have the rights of homosexual couples. Fringe Catholic groups will make this argument but they might get support from Muslims and other religions.

There are Plenty of Taxation and social welfare Reasons to oppose gay marriage.

From a Constitutional point, why should a Gay couple , by getting "married" enjoy better Constitutional rights than a de facto couple with children?

There is also the reality, that despite idiotic limp wristed wishy washy notions, people of the world are NOT the same as eachother. People have different characteristics and roles to play in the social order. It is a nonsense to say every one is the same. That is rubbish and grossly ill informed tosh. Legal Equity acknowledges that. You treat like for like and dislikes differently

All the gay groups have got going for them are emotional and illogical arguments about "love" , being "mean", having "hatred", and the laughable notion that a State Marriage, a public declaration of a union which enjoys important Constitutional priviledges, is no one's business. They also then, pathetically throw in delussion that the State is actually truely Secular and lump guilt trips about how these issues will hurt gays feelings and maybe worse (mental stability issues? Maybe marriage aint for some of the them)

walrusgumble · 24-01-2014 1:06pm

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Perhaps the term marriage needs to be redefined to accommodate people. If you accept marriage as economic and legal union between two individuals then that is marriage. If any group wishes to define it due to gender/religion etc then they can call it something else. E.g Married Muslim, married Roman Catholic, married Mormon etc.

That is what is sought to be done, redefine the Civil Definition of a Marriage.

walrusgumble · 24-01-2014 1:14pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The abortion issue was a big nothingburger for this government. We already have the regime that the public wants: abortion on demand in England.

Name one human rights issue here in Ireland which affects more than the (let's say) 2% of the population who are gay and denied equality before the law.

LOL

I am referring to the abortion debate of the 1980's and 1990's!

You need to educate yourself on what the Irish law says on Equality. It is immensely insulting to suggest that gay couples could possibly be the same or similar to the majority of hetrosexual couples. Pure anti hetrosexual bigotary .

Gilmore, made it clear, that this issue was the biggest human rights issue for the 21st Century. It is a nonsense statement.

It is the biggest issue for Labour in the 21 st Century because it is the only thing that is keeping them from pulling the pulg on government and facing justified slaughter at the elections.

Moreover, I would not worry too much. We WON'T see this referendum in 2015!

K-9 · 24-01-2014 2:37pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Considering gay people have destroyed the Church, I'd imagine the Church will do it's party piece on move on. People are well aware of their stance.

What gay people have destroyed the Church?

oscarBravo · 24-01-2014 3:53pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Pure anti hetrosexual bigotary .

Given your last few posts, that's some pretty breathtaking irony.

SoulandForm · 24-01-2014 7:14pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Moreover, I would not worry too much. We WON'T see this referendum in 2015!

I agree with most of what you said however I dont think you are correct here. Unfortunately I think we will- Labour have sacrificed a lot in terms of seeking social justice to Fine Gael in order to persue their other agenda and will take a hammering in the polls for doing so, they will have their referendum. Also probably sadly it will pass given the current mood.

_Redzer_ · 24-01-2014 8:41pm

SoulandForm wrote: »

I agree with most of what you said however I dont think you are correct here. Unfortunately I think we will- Labour have sacrificed a lot in terms of seeking social justice to Fine Gael in order to persue their other agenda and will take a hammering in the polls for doing so, they will have their referendum. Also probably sadly it will pass given the current mood.

What's really sad is that there are actually people out there who are genuinely saddened at the thought of the referendum passing for SSM.

Zubeneschamali · 24-01-2014 8:48pm

_Redzer_ wrote: »

What's really sad is that there are actually people out there who are genuinely saddened at the thought of the referendum passing for SSM.

The sadder they are the better I like it.

SoulandForm · 24-01-2014 11:50pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The sadder they are the better I like it.

Why do you say that?

_Redzer_ · 24-01-2014 11:51pm

SoulandForm wrote: »

Why do you say that?

Because it's pretty much deserved

Memnoch · 25-01-2014 12:05am

SoulandForm wrote: »

Why do you say that?

Because they are short-sighted, narrow-minded and entirely the architects of their own misery.

They should consider moving to Russia where they can join Putin in keeping children safe from the gays.

Links234 · 25-01-2014 2:00am

walrusgumble wrote: »

Considering gay people have destroyed the Church

We have?

Citation very much needed, because I think celebration would be in order :pac:

Annasopra · 25-01-2014 11:41am

Links234 wrote: »

We have?

Citation very much needed, because I think celebration would be in order :pac:

It's hard to know what was meant by that statement.

PopePalpatine · 25-01-2014 12:23pm

_Redzer_ wrote: »

What's really sad is that there are actually people out there who are genuinely saddened at the thought of the referendum passing for SSM.

It's almost as saddening as f*cked up people thinking depression is a sin, like S&F.

RobertKK · 25-01-2014 4:12pm

K-9 wrote: »

What gay people have destroyed the Church?

I am just wondering about this, if over 80% of all abuse in the church was male sexually abusing another male, with preference for male victims only, does this mean there were abusers who were gay and by far the biggest amount of the abusers?
Then we had former President Mary McAleese say a lot of priests are gay.

This leads to another point, the church now has implemented a child protection policy, where no child is left alone with a priest, to safeguard both child and priest - from abuse or false allegation.

Given the church had a problem with abuse given the trust it had, and given the respectability Marriage would give as in commitment/loving and so on, it is very possible the gay community will find itself in the midst of a child abuse scandal in the future, when abusers of underage people, will get together and use same sex marriage not because they love one another, but because it allows access to children.
There are two known cases in Australia and the UK so far, people were afraid of being called homophobic in one case which allowed abuse to continue.
The government here plan to change the laws regarding children which along with the referendum if passed, will make it easier for paedophiles to marry one another and then adopt children.

People trusted the church and were afraid to question the church, the respect and trust allowed paedophiles to join and to abuse, and then the shame of it allowed it to continue.
I fear the same for genuine same sex couples, there will be people who will abuse it and it is something no one in the media wants to discuss.

Paedophiles must love what is being planned, it will give them a cover they can use, given the cover of the church has been blown wide open with measures implemented to make it near impossible.

Nodin · 25-01-2014 4:16pm

RobertKK wrote: »

I am just wondering about this, if over 80% of all abuse in the church was male sexually abusing another male, with preference for male victims only, does this mean there were abusers who were gay and by far the biggest amount of the abusers?
Then we had former President Mary McAleese say a lot of priests are gay.

A sexual attraction to underage pre-pubescent children = paedophilia. It is not homosexuality. Were we to extend your notion, men who molest underage pre-pubescent girls would be termed heterosexuals.

RobertKK wrote:

Given the church had a problem with abuse given the trust it had, and given the respectability Marriage would give as in commitment/loving and so on, it is very possible the gay community will find itself in the midst of a child abuse scandal in the future, when abusers of underage people, will get together and use same sex marriage not because they love one another, but because it allows access to children.

....as pointed out earlier in the thread, adoption by gay couples will be introduced separately to gay marriage and is a separate issue.

RobertKK · 25-01-2014 5:00pm

Nodin wrote: »

A sexual attraction to underage pre-pubescent children = paedophilia. It is not homosexuality. Were we to extend your notion, men who molest underage pre-pubescent girls would be termed heterosexuals.

....as pointed out earlier in the thread, adoption by gay couples will be introduced separately to gay marriage and is a separate issue.

But there is a name for every type of sexual preference.
Paedophile - 12 years or younger
Hebephilia - pre-pubescent boys over 12 years of age
Ephebophilia - 15 to 19 year olds
Teleiophilia - adults
Gerontophilia - the elderly.

So within all of these one can have an opposite sex preference or a same sex preference, maybe both, but you say having a same sex preference is not homosexual....I think men are far more likely to abuse children than women are, but in the church it now forbidden to leave children alone with a priest because of the abuse scandal, while the state now is planning same sex mariage which I believe will make it easier for the couple to adopt, I expect it will be like the church - most of the priests were genuine good people, it will be the same for same sex couples, but the state is going to open a door to abuse that the church is closing.

The government say the adoption issue will have to be sorted before a referendum, so in reality they are linked. Child abusers will be all for a change in the laws as planned by the government, all an abuser needs to do is stay below the radar and when laws change, then form a union with another abuser (most likely to be two men) and abuse the boy or girl they are given access to, because there are no records they have a sexual interest in underage people.

I have seen how these abusers used the church - the trust and respectability to abuse. They will use SSM to do the same and ironically it is the people who cried for SSM who will have allowed both good homosexual people and children to be abused, as there is nothing to prevent this from happening.
I actually fear for homosexuals in the future. I don't want them to go through what good proiests have had to go through, where people generalise them as being paedophiles.
I think people should be careful what they wish for, people say these are rights, but the loopholes it allows unintentionally are quite devastating for all concerned.

Corkfeen · 25-01-2014 5:18pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

If they were smart, they would keep it to themselves, and allow the gay marriage proponents to continue to get up the noses of Middle Ireland.

Considering gay people have destroyed the Church, I'd imagine the Church will do it's party piece on move on. People are well aware of their stance.

Think you're somewhat confused...

walrusgumble wrote: »

There are Plenty of Taxation and social welfare Reasons to oppose gay marriage.

From a Constitutional point, why should a Gay couple , by getting "married" enjoy better Constitutional rights than a de facto couple with children?

There is also the reality, that despite idiotic limp wristed wishy washy notions, people of the world are NOT the same as eachother. People have different characteristics and roles to play in the social order. It is a nonsense to say every one is the same. That is rubbish and grossly ill informed tosh. Legal Equity acknowledges that. You treat like for like and dislikes differently

All the gay groups have got going for them are emotional and illogical arguments about "love" , being "mean", having "hatred", and the laughable notion that a State Marriage, a public declaration of a union which enjoys important Constitutional priviledges, is no one's business. They also then, pathetically throw in delussion that the State is actually truely Secular and lump guilt trips about how these issues will hurt gays feelings and maybe worse (mental stability issues? Maybe marriage aint for some of the them)

I cordially request you to explain your logical reason to oppose it.

walrusgumble wrote: »

LOL

I am referring to the abortion debate of the 1980's and 1990's!

You need to educate yourself on what the Irish law says on Equality. It is immensely insulting to suggest that gay couples could possibly be the same or similar to the majority of hetrosexual couples. Pure anti hetrosexual bigotary .

Gilmore, made it clear, that this issue was the biggest human rights issue for the 21st Century. It is a nonsense statement.

It is the biggest issue for Labour in the 21 st Century because it is the only thing that is keeping them from pulling the pulg on government and facing justified slaughter at the elections.

Moreover, I would not worry too much. We WON'T see this referendum in 2015!

We will see this referendum in 2015. Nobody is antiheterosexual although a person who views gay people to be inferior such as yourself are homophobic.

SoulandForm wrote: »

I agree with most of what you said however I dont think you are correct here. Unfortunately I think we will- Labour have sacrificed a lot in terms of seeking social justice to Fine Gael in order to persue their other agenda and will take a hammering in the polls for doing so, they will have their referendum. Also probably sadly it will pass given the current mood.

Well if this is the opposition that can be mustered. Wonderful!

Nodin · 25-01-2014 5:31pm

RobertKK wrote: »

But there is a name for every type of sexual preference.
Paedophile - 12 years or younger
Hebephilia - pre-pubescent boys over 12 years of age
Ephebophilia - 15 to 19 year olds
Teleiophilia - adults
Gerontophilia - the elderly.

So within all of these one can have an opposite sex preference or a same sex preference, maybe both, but you say having a same sex preference is not homosexual...............

I'm going to explain this one last time. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Homosexuality is an attraction to adults of the same sex.

Nodin · 25-01-2014 5:45pm

Robertkk wrote:

The government say the adoption issue will have to be sorted before a referendum, so in reality they are linked

.

But if the referendum is never held, is held but fails, gay adoption will come in anyway. Thus there is no link.

FunLover18 · 25-01-2014 5:51pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Given the church had a problem with abuse given the trust it had, and given the respectability Marriage would give as in commitment/loving and so on, it is very possible the gay community will find itself in the midst of a child abuse scandal in the future, when abusers of underage people, will get together and use same sex marriage not because they love one another, but because it allows access to children.
There are two known cases in Australia and the UK so far, people were afraid of being called homophobic in one case which allowed abuse to continue.
The government here plan to change the laws regarding children which along with the referendum if passed, will make it easier for paedophiles to marry one another and then adopt children.

But this isn't just a homosexual problem. We've already said that homosexuals and paedophiles aren't the same. I'd put money down that there are more cases of fathers sexually abusing their biological children than there are of paedophiles adopting.

Cases of paedophiles being allowed to adopt children is not a con of gay marriage it is a major flaw in the adoption process.

Zubeneschamali · 25-01-2014 6:25pm

SoulandForm wrote: »

Why do you say that?

I like it when society moves away from bigotry and the bigots are sad.

RobertKK · 25-01-2014 7:53pm

Nodin wrote: »

I'm going to explain this one last time. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Homosexuality is an attraction to adults of the same sex.

But what you are arguing is equivalent to say a teleiophile cannot be homosexual because they are a teleiophile. A paedophile can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Just like a teleiophile can be.

I also think people don't choose to be homosexual, it is the way they were born, and they don't suddenly have this homosexual aattraction as an adult, they will have known as a child in most cases, because being heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual is seperate from being a teleiophile, paedophile or whatever else.

Nodin wrote: »

.

But if the referendum is never held, is held but fails, gay adoption will come in anyway. Thus there is no link.

The adoption changes are being made though because of the referendum, otherwise, if the referendum passes, given the same marriage right as heterosexuals, the law would be in conflict with the constitutional change a referendum would bring.
So to avoid that the changes are being made before the referendum, which is putting the cart before the horse.
No referendum and this would not be happening.

FunLover18 wrote: »

But this isn't just a homosexual problem. We've already said that homosexuals and paedophiles aren't the same. I'd put money down that there are more cases of fathers sexually abusing their biological children than there are of paedophiles adopting.

Cases of paedophiles being allowed to adopt children is not a con of gay marriage it is a major flaw in the adoption process.

But then in a heterosexual case of paedophilia last week, a girl was raped every sort of way by a man who mother married. How do we know that he didn't pretend to love the mother and married her for the rights it brought which gave him easy access to her daughter.
This happened in a case in Australia, a high profile same sex marriage advocate in the media, who is now in jail, he had a child and he married a paedophile and went abroad with the child so other paedophiles could also abuse the child, horrific case.
UIn Englans, two paedophiles married (abused ssm) and they fostered children, abused upto 18 children if I remember the case correctly, a social worker was concerned bnut feared being seen as homophobic if she raised her concerned, which allowed the abuse to continue longer it should have.

Yes, there is a lot of reasons to worry about children and what they are subjected to from both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
But SSM with adoption rights is perfect for those who want to abuse it. It will be like that case in England where people will be afraid as being seen to be homophobic when they have a genuine concern.
I think it is easier to report a heterosexual case of abuse as you wouldn't be under suspicion of being homophobic.
Most people don't want to be labelled in a negative manner.

FunLover18 · 25-01-2014 8:08pm

RobertKK wrote: »

But then in a heterosexual case of paedophilia last week, a girl was raped every sort of way by a man who mother married. How do we know that he didn't pretend to love the mother and married her for the rights it brought which gave him easy access to her daughter.
This happened in a case in Australia, a high profile same sex marriage advocate in the media, who is now in jail, he had a child and he married a paedophile and went abroad with the child so other paedophiles could also abuse the child, horrific case.
UIn Englans, two paedophiles married (abused ssm) and they fostered children, abused upto 18 children if I remember the case correctly, a social worker was concerned bnut feared being seen as homophobic if she raised her concerned, which allowed the abuse to continue longer it should have.

Yes, there is a lot of reasons to worry about children and what they are subjected to from both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
But SSM with adoption rights is perfect for those who want to abuse it. It will be like that case in England where people will be afraid as being seen to be homophobic when they have a genuine concern.
I think it is easier to report a heterosexual case of abuse as you wouldn't be under suspicion of being homophobic.
Most people don't want to be labelled in a negative manner.

But you've just proved my point with your first example, it's not exclusive the homosexuals. Yet you're isolating the homosexuals as they are somehow more likely to abuse the system. SSM is not the flaw in the system, it's not like two single paedophiles go up to an adoption agency get turned away, meet, get married, return and the adoption agency says "Oh you're married, congratulations! Here have a child!" The flaw in the system that allows for the cases you mentioned above is that the screening done by the agencies isn't up to standard. The solution isn't to say "Well the agencies can't tell a married couple in love from a pair of paedos, so let's just not allow the gays to marry, that way they won't have to tell the difference". The solution is to put stricter screening in place, not just for SSM but for all couples who wish to adopt or foster.

Annasopra · 25-01-2014 8:11pm

RobertKK wrote: »

I am just wondering about this, if over 80% of all abuse in the church was male sexually abusing another male, with preference for male victims only, does this mean there were abusers who were gay and by far the biggest amount of the abusers?
Then we had former President Mary McAleese say a lot of priests are gay.

No. It means the priests were paedophiles!

RobertKK wrote: »

Given the church had a problem with abuse given the trust it had, and given the respectability Marriage would give as in commitment/loving and so on, it is very possible the gay community will find itself in the midst of a child abuse scandal in the future, when abusers of underage people, will get together and use same sex marriage not because they love one another, but because it allows access to children.

Everything is possible. This is possible, but remotely possible because adoption laws are quite stringent. People do not just get approved overnight for adoption so I highly doubt that vetting procedures would let such an incident slip through. Of course heterosexual men could do this too. Perhaps we should ban all men from parenting? To be honest this suggestion seems very far fetched to me and about as ludicrous as the Former Minister Mary Hanafin suggesting people would change their gender to fiddle social welfare.

RobertKK wrote: »

I fear the same for genuine same sex couples, there will be people who will abuse it and it is something no one in the media wants to discuss.

I'm really not sure if you do genuinely fear for genuine same sex couples. I mean why on earth would you be making quite frankly offensive paralells between gay adult males and paedophiles if you genuinely feared for them.

RobertKK · 25-01-2014 8:29pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

But you've just proved my point with your first example, it's not exclusive the homosexuals. Yet you're isolating the homosexuals as they are somehow more likely to abuse the system. SSM is not the flaw in the system, it's not like two single paedophiles go up to an adoption agency get turned away, meet, get married, return and the adoption agency says "Oh you're married, congratulations! Here have a child!" The flaw in the system that allows for the cases you mentioned above is that the screening done by the agencies isn't up to standard. The solution isn't to say "Well the agencies can't tell a married couple in love from a pair of paedos, so let's just not allow the gays to marry, that way they won't have to tell the difference". The solution is to put stricter screening in place, not just for SSM but for all couples who wish to adopt or foster.

I never argued it was exclusive to homosexuals, but paedophiles are far more likely to be men, thus SSM with adoption rights is a dream for abusers of those who are underage. It will be open for a lot of abuse, which will be at the expense in time of the good same sex couples, just like it was with the good priests who had to endure the sex scandals where some people still generalise priests as being sex abusers.

In the church it is women who are used for child protection, one can't put a woman in the home of two men who have been given a child through adoption or fostering to make sure nothing happens. This is the extreme measure the church had to make.
If you are a paedophile, well the church is a lost cause with the changes, while same sex adoption and marriage, is an avenue that is opening up for two men who have no record of abuse to get access to children.
Two men marrying will not necessarily mean they are homosexual, two heterosexual men could marry with a view to adoption and abuse.
Paedophiles whether heterosexual or homosexual will do anything to abuse - join the priesthood, become swimming coaches, marry someone with a child, abuse their own children. The fact is changes in the law will open up a new route for abusers whether they are two heterosexual or homosexual paedophile, who will use the banner of same sex and adoption as a means to an end.

How do you screen out abusers who have stayed under the radar? The fact is most cases of abuse stay below the radar.

RobertKK · 25-01-2014 8:54pm

mango salsa wrote: »

No. It means the priests were paedophiles!

Everything is possible. This is possible, but remotely possible because adoption laws are quite stringent. People do not just get approved overnight for adoption so I highly doubt that vetting procedures would let such an incident slip through. Of course heterosexual men could do this too. Perhaps we should ban all men from parenting? To be honest this suggestion seems very far fetched to me and about as ludicrous as the Former Minister Mary Hanafin suggesting people would change their gender to fiddle social welfare.

I'm really not sure if you do genuinely fear for genuine same sex couples. I mean why on earth would you be making quite frankly offensive paralells between gay adult males and paedophiles if you genuinely feared for them.

You think far fetched?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-10/gorman-second-thoughts/4809582

In 2010 Ginger Gorman interviewed a gay couple about their struggle to become parents. When the men were uncovered as paedophiles Gorman was left with a deep sense of grief for the boy and questioned whether there was anything she could have done.
Dear Boy 1, you've become a number. Since your case ended up in court, I'm not allowed to identify you. But I know your name. In my head I say your name. I can see your face, clear as day. I see your sweet, shining eyes and your cheeky smile. I can even hear your little voice, imploring me to come and see your baby chickens. If I knew then what I know now, I would have done anything to stop the heinous crimes being perpetrated against you. I would have done anything to end your misery. But I didn't know. I had no idea. I'm so sorry.
In 2010 I interviewed two gay dads about their struggle to have a child via surrogacy. Those two men turned out to be paedophiles. The crimes they committed against their son are so horrendous that it's hard to even comprehend them.

This will happen over and over again, there is nothing to stop it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522158/Gay-couple-jailed-for-abusing-their-foster-children.html

Two homosexual men who sexually abused young children placed in their foster care were jailed yesterday.

Ian Wathey, 41, and his partner Craig Faunch, 32, were found guilty of a string of offences against four boys aged between eight and 14.

The pair used the boys for sexual gratification within months of being approved as foster carers by Wakefield council.

These cases were uncovered after the abuse happened, there is nothing to stop abusers abusing the system.

I do fear for same sex couples, I know how I felt about good priests who never abused and now have to have a person with them everytime there is a child around to offer protection to the child and to the priest from a false allegation.
They are reminded all the time of the abuse and how they are not to be trusted, even though they did nothing wrong.
Abusers of underage people did this to them, they did nothing wrong but do be generalised as abusers by some.
The loophole in the church has been closed that allowed abuse, while now abusers can use adoption and same sex marriage to do to homosexuals what they did to priests.
It could end up like the church in a few decades times the whole thing blows open when the damage is done. It is a massive loophole the state is creating for abusers to benefit from.

Annasopra · 25-01-2014 9:17pm

RobertKK wrote: »

You think far fetched?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-10/gorman-second-thoughts/4809582

This will happen over and over again, there is nothing to stop it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522158/Gay-couple-jailed-for-abusing-their-foster-children.html

These cases were uncovered after the abuse happened, there is nothing to stop abusers abusing the system.

I do fear for same sex couples, I know how I felt about good priests who never abused and now have to have a person with them everytime there is a child around to offer protection to the child and to the priest from a false allegation.
They are reminded all the time of the abuse and how they are not to be trusted, even though they did nothing wrong.
Abusers of underage people did this to them, they did nothing wrong but do be generalised as abusers by some.
The loophole in the church has been closed that allowed abuse, while now abusers can use adoption and same sex marriage to do to homosexuals what they did to priests.
It could end up like the church in a few decades times the whole thing blows open when the damage is done. It is a massive loophole the state is creating for abusers to benefit from.

I don't believe your concern is in anyway genuine at all. You are trying to suggest that one or two examples will somehow open up a plethora of cases for this to happen and you are completely ignoring the fact that adoption vetting is a difficult process that is designed to ensure children are placed in suitable homes. Children are not just adopted by married couppes currently overnight. There is a stringent process of adoption. You are scaremongering. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Nodin · 25-01-2014 9:29pm

mango salsa wrote: »

I don't believe your concern is in anyway genuine at all. You are trying to suggest that one or two examples will somehow open up a plethora of cases for this to happen and you are completely ignoring the fact that adoption vetting is a difficult process that is designed to ensure children are placed in suitable homes. Children are not just adopted by married couppes currently overnight. There is a stringent process of adoption. You are scaremongering. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Every objection thus far raised could be used against heterosexual marriage/fostering etc.

Gay Marriage

Comments