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

Gay Marriage

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,902 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Nodin wrote: »
    Every objection thus far raised could be used against heterosexual marriage/fostering etc.
    Of course and I would love some proof of the statement that nothing can stop abusers abusing the system.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #123
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mango salsa wrote: »
    Of course and I would love some proof of the statement that nothing can stop abusers abusing the system.


    ....well - taking that as true for the sake of argument - then one should shut down all "heterosexual" couples access to marriage, adoption, foster and so on. As he fails to follow through on his own "logic", its fairly obvious its scare-mongering and argument by defamation.


  • Options
    #124
    returnNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭returnNull


    Nodin wrote: »
    Every objection thus far raised could be used against heterosexual marriage/fostering etc.

    very true,wonder how many hits Id get if I googled heterosexual child abusers.

    Some of the ignorance Ive seen posted on this thread leaves me with little faith in mankind.

    Gay marriage wont be the end of the world and it will only affect a small minority(gay couples),for heterosexual people/couples life will continue on and claiming otherwise is fearmongering.


  • Options
    #125
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    RobertKK wrote: »
    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.

    Single people can already adopt, Colm O'Gorman would be a high profile example if I'm correct, he lives with his partner and 2 children. You seem to be suggesting gay marriage will open up some new route, gay adoption already exists in practice.

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



  • Options
    #126
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    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

    Only most of the abuse was of post-pubescent children/young adults so Im afraid his argument stands. Its sadly ironic that those most willing to attack the RCC over what happened (and in most cases probably justly) are the very last ones to attack the movement to accept homosexuality (which raises serious questions about their motives in attacking the RCC).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Its sadly ironic that those most willing to attack the RCC over what happened (and in most cases probably justly) are the very last ones to attack the movement to accept homosexuality (which raises serious questions about their motives in attacking the RCC).
    It's only ironic if you insist on continuing to conflate homosexuality and paedophilia, which conflation is nothing other than homophobia in its most disgusting expression.


  • Options
    #128
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Only most of the abuse was of post-pubescent children/young adults so Im afraid his argument stands. Its sadly ironic that those most willing to attack the RCC over what happened (and in most cases probably justly) are the very last ones to attack the movement to accept homosexuality (which raises serious questions about their motives in attacking the RCC).

    See, you are one of those people that I sincerely hope are saddened when we introduce equal rights for gays.

    Actually, I hope you are sickened.


  • Options
    #129
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Only most of the abuse was of post-pubescent children/young adults so Im afraid his argument stands. Its sadly ironic that those most willing to attack the RCC over what happened (and in most cases probably justly) are the very last ones to attack the movement to accept homosexuality (which raises serious questions about their motives in attacking the RCC).

    Mod:

    You have any statistics to back up it was mostly post-pubescent children/young adults? Before the thread goes down that path, I'd like to see some evidence, if it's your opinion fair enough, but you seem to have clearly stated that as true.

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



  • Options
    #130
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    K-9 wrote: »
    Mod:

    You have any statistics to back up it was mostly post-pubescent children/young adults? Before the thread goes down that path, I'd like to see some evidence, if it's your opinion fair enough, but you seem to have clearly stated that as true.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/causes-of-clerical-child-abuse-in-us-revealed-by-new-report-139706-May2011/

    "Most abusive priests were “not paedophiles”, if paedophilia is defined as having desires towards prepubescent children; and most of their victims were adolescents."

    It had a lot to do with the elite that took power after the defeat of the Irish Republic- working class children being interned in work camps to work for the winners of the "civil war rather than Roman Catholicism as such. Infact the Hierarchy put their class interests before the interests of the Christian religion and yet made out that the interests of their class were the interests of Christ and so destroyed Roman Catholicism in Ireland.


  • Options
    #131
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/causes-of-clerical-child-abuse-in-us-revealed-by-new-report-139706-May2011/

    "Most abusive priests were “not paedophiles”, if paedophilia is defined as having desires towards prepubescent children; and most of their victims were adolescents."

    Homosexuality is the attraction to those of the same sex, not the underage. I don't see why I have to keep stating this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/causes-of-clerical-child-abuse-in-us-revealed-by-new-report-139706-May2011/

    "Most abusive priests were “not paedophiles”, if paedophilia is defined as having desires towards prepubescent children; and most of their victims were adolescents."

    It had a lot to do with the elite that took power after the defeat of the Irish Republic- working class children being interned in work camps to work for the winners of the "civil war rather than Roman Catholicism as such. Infact the Hierarchy put their class interests before the interests of the Christian religion and yet made out that the interests of their class were the interests of Christ and so destroyed Roman Catholicism in Ireland.

    OK, thank you, the thing is, if we take that link seriously, you obviously do, it also states:

    Whether a priest was homosexual did not make them more or less likely to become an abuser. That the vast majority of the victims – 81 per cent – were boys is simply down to priests having more contact with them. Abuse is “a crime of opportunity,” a summary of the findings states
    .

    The same report you cite as evidence that most priests weren't paedophiles also says homosexuality had little or no affect on abuse.

    So you've a dilemna here, if you are saying paedophilia wasn't a factor in the majority of cases, the same report you rely on states homosexuality wasn't either.

    So you've a problem here, you stated Robert KK's point still stands. The evidence provided by you actually totally discredits his point. It suggests homosexuality and paedophilia had nothing to do with abuse in the majority of cases.

    Can you outline your logic on how that report backs up Robert KK's point.

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



  • Options
    #133
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,674 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Ironically that people have lost faith in the State when it comes to economic matters given the 2008 onwards great recession but are still willing to see the the redefining of marriage into that of companionship/domestic partnership.
    This in the context of a Europe that has seen the institution of marriage decline to record lows under the same broad post-Christian progressive consensus that has been emerged since the 60s. This weakening has been welcomed and the concept of untraditional marriage been held as another nail in its coffin, by supporters and advocates as a means to debunk the myth of marriage and to alter its archaic nature and to cut the link between children and marriage.


  • Options
    #134
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Manach wrote: »
    Ironically that people have lost faith in the State when it comes to economic matters given the 2008 onwards great recession but are still willing to see the the redefining of marriage into that of companionship/domestic partnership.
    This in the context of a Europe that has seen the institution of marriage decline to record lows under the same broad post-Christian progressive consensus that has been emerged since the 60s. This weakening has been welcomed and the concept of untraditional marriage been held as another nail in its coffin, by supporters and advocates as a means to debunk the myth of marriage and to alter its archaic nature and to cut the link between children and marriage.


    ....reads like you're arguing against yourself there.


  • Options
    #135
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Manach wrote: »
    Ironically that people have lost faith in the State when it comes to economic matters given the 2008 onwards great recession but are still willing to see the the redefining of marriage into that of companionship/domestic partnership.
    This in the context of a Europe that has seen the institution of marriage decline to record lows under the same broad post-Christian progressive consensus that has been emerged since the 60s. This weakening has been welcomed and the concept of untraditional marriage been held as another nail in its coffin, by supporters and advocates as a means to debunk the myth of marriage and to alter its archaic nature and to cut the link between children and marriage.

    All you lot do is spin in the same circle, huh?

    There's no link between children and marriage because it's not a requirement. That's why infertile couples can marry.

    Christian marriage is not traditional. The concept of love was irrelevant 100 years ago and it was on a suitor bases. That's only changed relatively recently.

    If anything untraditional is going on here it's Christian marriage prohibiting same sex marriage which was common among many great civilisations from Ancient Greek, Roman and Aztec, etc.

    But this has all been explained a million and one times to you before anyway, you just choose not to listen or take anything new in.


  • Options
    #136
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    K-9 wrote: »
    The same report you cite as evidence that most priests weren't paedophiles also says homosexuality had little or no affect on abuse.

    So you've a dilemna here, if you are saying paedophilia wasn't a factor in the majority of cases, the same report you rely on states homosexuality wasn't either.
    .

    Of course it does- in the world we live in how could it be otherwise?

    The fact is that most of these men didnt abuse pre-pubsecent children but teenagers. They could have abused children in the modern definition but they rather prefered teenagers- suggesting that homosexuality was an actual problem no?


  • Options
    #137
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Of course it does- in the world we live in how could it be otherwise?

    The fact is that most of these men didnt abuse pre-pubsecent children but teenagers. They could have abused children in the modern definition but they rather prefered teenagers- suggesting that homosexuality was an actual problem no?



    Homosexuality is not the abuse of underage children. For the second time.


  • Options
    #138
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Manach wrote: »
    Ironically that people have lost faith in the State when it comes to economic matters given the 2008 onwards great recession but are still willing to see the the redefining of marriage into that of companionship/domestic partnership.
    This in the context of a Europe that has seen the institution of marriage decline to record lows under the same broad post-Christian progressive consensus that has been emerged since the 60s. This weakening has been welcomed and the concept of untraditional marriage been held as another nail in its coffin, by supporters and advocates as a means to debunk the myth of marriage and to alter its archaic nature and to cut the link between children and marriage.

    In a Socialist Ireland this debate would not even come up. While people are not excused (if someone goes to judgement "gay" now arguing that it was all others fault Im not sure will cut it) the fact is that we are influenced by economic and social factors we find ourselves surrounded by.


  • Options
    #139
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    See, you are one of those people that I sincerely hope are saddened when we introduce equal rights for gays.

    Actually, I hope you are sickened.

    You know, I don't hope for any such thing for the bigots and homophobes out there, because really I don't think they're bad people at all. Homophobia like all bigotry and prejudice is learned, and I hope for nothing more than people to grow out of it, that when same sex couples are marrying and having families and the sky doesn't fall down, they see it doesn't effect them or impact their lives at all and go about their own lives.

    I would feel sad for anyone who would entrench themselves in such bigotry, I would pity them, that is all.

    uncaptioned-ur6to-50b7cdc83a88d.jpeg


  • Options
    #140
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    Nodin wrote: »
    Homosexuality is not the abuse of underage children. For the second time.

    Does abuse of over age young adults count as homosexuality?


  • Options
    #141
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Does abuse of over age young adults count as homosexuality?

    Please define the abuse of over age young adults.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Does abuse of over age young adults count as homosexuality?


    No, it counts as abuse.


    Whats your thoughts on Gay marriage, btw? Are you against it? If so, why.


  • Options
    #143
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Of course it does- in the world we live in how could it be otherwise?

    The fact is that most of these men didnt abuse pre-pubsecent children but teenagers. They could have abused children in the modern definition but they rather prefered teenagers- suggesting that homosexuality was an actual problem no?

    Nope,no it doesn't. Do you have any research to back up your claims because homosexuality relating to pedophilia or anything of the sort has been proven time and time again as homophobic urban myths.

    Your very own link points to the fact it was a crime based on the most available victims being male. You're making conclusions that are entirely invalid because you wish for your prejudices to be confirmed.


  • Options
    #144
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Of course it does- in the world we live in how could it be otherwise?

    The fact is that most of these men didnt abuse pre-pubsecent children but teenagers. They could have abused children in the modern definition but they rather prefered teenagers- suggesting that homosexuality was an actual problem no?

    Look, I'm just looking at the Catholic Church report that you linked to, to provide proof that paedophilia wasn't an issue in the majority of cases. The very same report that you rely on as back up for the paedophilia point, suggests homosexuality wasn't either. So the report you linked suggest paedophilia and homesexuality had nothing to do with church sexual abuse case, in the majority of cases.

    Mod:

    If you want to rely on a link to prove your point, please don't selectively ignore points on the very same link that contradict your point. You've just provided a link that backs up one point, but totally contradicts the overall point made.

    If you continue to rely on one part of a report to back up your view, but just brush aside other findings from the exact same report, we've a problem, that's soap boxing and will see you banned from the thread at the very least.

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



  • Options
    #145
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,674 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    All you lot do is spin in the same circle, huh?

    There's no link between children and marriage because it's not a requirement. That's why infertile couples can marry.

    Christian marriage is not traditional. The concept of love was irrelevant 100 years ago and it was on a suitor bases. That's only changed relatively recently.

    If anything untraditional is going on here it's Christian marriage prohibiting same sex marriage which was common among many great civilisations from Ancient Greek, Roman and Aztec, etc.

    But this has all been explained a million and one times to you before anyway, you just choose not to listen or take anything new in.

    We have an tendancy to stick to the facts. One of the main initial proponents of the infertile couples and marriage idea was a Prof. Steven Macedo who made that point. Counter arguments have been made by Prof. John Finnis who pointed out that such are by their nature supportive of the institution of marriage and do not undermine it as the overall linkage remains. This is not supported by same-sex marriage.

    From what I know of history as a classicist, as per your Civs mentioned, the Aztecs were known mainly for their heart surgery sans anaesthetic, the Greeks within some polii (eg Athens )had a socially regulated Teen/Man relationship but this did not extend to marriage which was strictly Man/Women - as for the Romans, I've only read of one instance. That was when an emperor tried to marry a man. The crowds jeered and laughed at him so much in the Collesum the prestige of his reign never
    recovered. Wrong then, wrong now.


  • Options
    #146
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Manach wrote: »
    We have an tendancy to stick to the facts. One of the main initial proponents of the infertile couples and marriage idea was a Prof. Steven Macedo who made that point. Counter arguments have been made by Prof. John Finnis who pointed out that such are by their nature supportive of the institution of marriage and do not undermine it as the overall linkage remains. This is not supported by same-sex marriage.

    From what I know of history as a classicist, as per your Civs mentioned, the Aztecs were known mainly for their heart surgery sans anaesthetic, the Greeks within some polii (eg Athens )had a socially regulated Teen/Man relationship but this did not extend to marriage which was strictly Man/Women - as for the Romans, I've only read of one instance. That was when an emperor tried to marry a man. The crowds jeered and laughed at him so much in the Collesum the prestige of his reign never
    recovered. Wrong then, wrong now.

    Wrong because a magical being with no proof of existence says so?

    I fail to see what's wrong with two loving and consenting same sex couples of age marrying. There's nothing wrong with it and there never will be.

    We could talk about biology and morals, but I'll win that because there's is nothing at all wrong with it. What mythology you were brainwashed with when you were a child dictates your stance on this and makes it irrational.


  • Options
    #147
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Manach wrote: »
    From what I know of history as a classicist, as per your Civs mentioned, the Aztecs were known mainly for their heart surgery sans anaesthetic, the Greeks within some polii (eg Athens )had a socially regulated Teen/Man relationship but this did not extend to marriage which was strictly Man/Women - as for the Romans, I've only read of one instance. That was when an emperor tried to marry a man. The crowds jeered and laughed at him so much in the Collesum the prestige of his reign never
    recovered. Wrong then, wrong now.

    Illustrate what it is wrong with about same sex couples marrying. We're referring to consensual couples marrying so most of the above is fairly inapplicable. Crowds jeering at an emperor marrying a man is more illustrative of the fact that people can be dicks than anything else.

    You make fairly vague claims of it undermining society but society has not collapsed as a result of the numerous countries that have allowed same sex marriage. The very fact that your primary basis for not allowing same sex couples to marry because of a Christian moral ideal rather than actual facts is indicative of the fact that your reasoning should have no impact upon how the state operates in regards to civil marriages.


  • Options
    #148
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    The morons
    Wrong because a magical being with no proof of existence says so?
    All you lot do is spin in the same circle, huh?

    Mod:

    Tone it down please, I already gave a warning about posting respectfully and civilly, these posts don't cut it I'm afraid.

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



  • Options
    #149
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    K-9 wrote: »
    Mod:

    Tone it down please, I already gave a warning about posting respectfully and civilly, these posts don't cut it I'm afraid.

    VERY emotive topic and I feel you have your work cut out for you:D personally I am going to unsubscribe from this thread as I know that I will end up getting a warning/ban if I continue to follow it. Good luck all and remember the things that matter most I life are not things!


  • Options
    #150
    duckman!!
    Registered Users Posts: 469 ✭✭duckman!!


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/causes-of-clerical-child-abuse-in-us-revealed-by-new-report-139706-May2011/
    CATHOLIC PRIESTS WHO sexually molest children and teenagers are not driven by the pressures of celibacy or repressed homosexual desire, according to a new inquiry into clerical abuses in the US.
    Instead, the report – commissioned by US bishops and other Catholic organisations – released today blames social changes, suggesting that abuse was driven by a general rise in “deviant” behaviour in the 1960s and 1970s. Increases in drug use, premarital sex and divorce throughout society influenced “vulnerable” priests who became abusers, the document’s authors write.
    this report that was commissioned by US bishops and other Catholic organisations found drugs and premarital sex was the reason for priests abusing children???......... i have never read a bigger pile of s**t in my life, my grandmother once told me when ever a boy or young man back it the day showed any signs of being GAY they were sent straight into the priesthood(to pray away the gay) which tells me that there's probably a huge amount of priests out there today who are hiding there sexuality!! and who are the easiest targets for priests with homosexual urges.....children!
    Typical Catholic church blaming everything and anything but themselves!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,730 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Some here questioned how genuine I was being, I am being deadly seriously, in heterosexual abuse cases it is near always a man that abuses, yes I am being told I am not being genuine when I raise genuine concerns about men - whether heterosexual or homosexual - using SSM and the changes to adoption for the purpose of abuse.
    I think anyone who thinks this will not happen are only wanting to see happy genuine couples married and maybe with children, but it is refusing to see how it also leaves a major loophole to be abused. No different to the respect and position in society that allowed men to join the priesthood with the intention of abuse. Oh a priest would never abuse anyone, you can't be saying that....

    It is sad the government wants to open up a route for sexual abusers to abuse both minors and homosexuals themselves. It would not be the first time the state has been involved in child abuse, with courts sending minors to industrial schools, where the state had inspectors and failed to see the physical, sexual and mental abuse that went on.
    Then people somehow think the state will somehow be able to spot an abuser before they are given access to the minor to abuse.
    Gay marriage is going to backfire, given the rights it gives also makes it easy to be abused by evil people who don't care about minors or homosexuals, just their own sexual gratification.
    It anyone thinks I am not being genuine, I ask you this, would you trust a child abuser?
    If you do then my argument is not genuine.


Advertisement