Gays want to take over the rest of Society?

donfers

Teclo wrote: »

Whine, whine, whine. The reaction here just proves what he was getting at... the gay political agenda of warning people 'if you don't believe what we believe you have no right to express your opinion'.

precisely, there is absolute ****e peddled in that paper every single week but certain causes spark more ire than others, for example that paper is constanly having a go at for example, Limerick city and its inhabitants or Irish nationalists/republicans or whoever they feel like having a pop at that weekend, seems like the most intelligent thing to do would be to ignore it and not dignify it with a response but as usual with stuff like this we get the usual angry mob posting their posts about what a gob****e this guy is, how wrong and stupid he is, how embittered and fascist his views are while at the same time ironically failing to notice the angry scowl on their own faces and the pitchfork in their hands which was exactly the response the article intended to provoke, so well done on being so utterly predictable and well done on posting your post, it'll make a world of difference - please just intervene in real world situations where you witness any.... you know like....... real-life abuse of gays or gypsies or Poles or whoever you profess to be fighting in the trenches with, because that will have a lot more effect and save us all the hassle of reading a load of liberal fascist hate-filled bluster that turns me off a lot of the people involved in causes I believe in

Incidentally I agree with some of the points in the article, some are badly phrased and generalise a tad which is the nature of the beast with these kind of anti-fashionable liberal untouchable causes type articles you see cropping up every now and then in the media but why people are getting their knickers in such a twist is not at all a mystery to me - It's because generally their cause is right and that unfortunately imbues them with a sense of invincibility that in turn leads to lots of vitriol, hypocrasy and frenzied baiting that does their just cause an undignified disservice, that unfortunately is the way of the world with the liberal fascist era we live in, whereby the irony is all these so-called proponents of free speech and civil liberties are the first to shout someone down or lead the angry mob if the opinion of the other differs fom our own right-on down with people (if the people agree with me) view.

If one is truly liberal, right-on or down with the people you would respect the right of others to have the type of opinion/view in the article no matter how disgusting, stupid, unfashionable or malicious you perceive it to be so please if you want to rip the article or the man who wrote it then focus precisely on what he has said that has caused such offense and respond to it with your counter-argument in a cool and measured fashion if possible, I know hysteria is incredibly tempting if you believe the forces of good are on your side but to my mind it betrays a lack of understanding and integrity, we should cherish debate, expose the frauds coolly and calmly or let them expose themselves (no, not like that - stop sniggering at the back, this is a serious post), rather than just join in the mindless blood-letting which dehumanizes all of us

Dudess

It's more the way they express their opinions than the opinions themselves. Pure aggressive and hate-filled. I think being OTT camp can be cringey too but that's not what this is about.

Logical Fallacy

donfers wrote: »

precisely, there is absolute ****e peddled in that paper every single week but certain causes spark more ire than others, for example that paper is constanly having a go at for example, Limerick city and its inhabitants or Irish nationalists/republicans or whoever they feel like having a pop at that weekend, seems like the most intelligent thing to do would be to ignore it and not dignify it with a response but as usual with stuff like this we get the usual angry mob posting their posts about what a gob****e this guy is, how wrong and stupid he is, how embittered and fascist his views are while at the same time ironically failing to notice the angry scowl on their own faces and the pitchfork in their hands which was exactly the response the article intended to provoke, so well done on being so utterly predictable and well done on posting your post, it'll make a world of difference - please just intervene in real world situations where you witness any you know like real-life abuse of gays or gypsies or Poles or whoever you profess to be fighting in the trenches with because that will have a lot more effect and save us all the hassle of reading a load of liberal fascist hate-filled bluster that turns me off a lot of the people involved in causes I believe in

Incidentally I agree with some of the points in the article, some are badly phrased and generalise a tad which is the nature of the beast with these kind of anti-fashionable liberal untouchable causes you see cropping up every now and then in the media but why people are getting their knickers in such a twist is not at all a mystery to me? It's because generally their cause is right and that unfortunately imbues them with a sense of invincibility that in turn leads to lots of vitriol, hypocrasy and frenzied baiting that does their just cause an undignified disservice, that unfortunately is the way of the world with the liberal fascist era we live in, whereby the irony is all these so-called proponents of free speech and civil liberties are the first to shout someone down or lead the angry mob if the opinion of the other differs fom our own right-on down with people view.

If one is truly liberal, right-on or down with the people you would respect the right of others to have that opinion no matter how disgusting, stupid, unfashionable or malicious you perceive it to be so please if you want to rip the article or the man who wrote it then focus precisely on what he has said that has caused such offense and respond to it with your counter-argument in a cool and measured fashion if possible, I know hysteria is incredibly tempting if you believe the forces of good are on your side but to my mind it betrays a lack of understanding and integrity, we should cherish debate, expose the frauds, rather than just join in the mindless blood-letting which dehumanizes all of us

Sorry, all i took from that is that you feel people should be able to read something and disagree with it without posting about it...but you yourself post about what you disagree with.

Kind of hamstrings the argument for me...if you didn't post i'm sure i would agree with you though.

strobe

donfers wrote: »

so well done on being so utterly predictable and well done on posting your post, it'll make a world of difference -

Indeed man, right back at ye.


Sure why don't we just shut boards.ie down so if people like me and you are going to be posting stuff on it. It's madness sure.

Eric Cartman

Freddie59 wrote: »

I personally think there is nothing worse than a bunch of people parading down a street protesting their 'gay pride'. FFS what is all that about. Is there a 'heterosexual pride' day? No.

100% agreed, i personally think that if the out and out queens were to stop their overly flamboyant behavior and get rid of the gay pride parade and stop declaring pubs as 'gay' or 'straight' bars , then i think the stigma would go away , theres a minority of the gay community who just promote the abuse and segregation through their actions, how people in the straight community percieve them and their willingness to flaunt their sexuality in other peoples faces.

as long as the less educated sect of our country perceives every gay person as being a mix of david norris and elton john the stigma and abuse that goes with being gay will not dissapear

Temptamperu

Lavezzi wrote: »

Completely agree with most of the article. If liberals could take off their PC specs, they'd be able to clearly see that homosexuality is abnormal; it's an environmental disorder. Under 20 years ago homosexuality was illegal in Ireland, but now we're having homosexual presidential candidates?? Talk about tipping the scale. I'm not saying homosexuality is debilitating in the same way as other mental illnesses are. But how can we stand opposed to political corruption and then consider electing someone whose fundamental psychology is corrupted? Gays deserve equal rights as much as any other regular person does. But such a position should be closed to them without question. We need those in the lime-light to set a moral example to others. 'Normalizing' it just adversely affects vulnerable young minds.

Also, to even question whether gays should be allowed to adopt is sick and shows how brainwashed and morally corrupted the Irish liberals truly are.

Yeah like it will make more people choose to be gay

Teclo

LeixlipRed wrote: »

The gay agenda? :pac:

1. Same sex marriage
2. Same sex civil union
3. Homosexual adoption
4. Anti-'Hate' laws
5. Homosexual friendly school programs

I'm sure you can think of some others

Dudess

It's utterly retarded to say people support gay rights in order to be fashionable/liberal. Yet even some intelligent people still say it.
And I love the reverse PC brigade who defend a person's right to post unsubstantiated drivel. Maybe if they bothered to support a word they say they wouldn't be jumped on. But oh no... it's "liberal" bullying... ****ing joke.

MrStuffins

Freddie59 wrote: »

I have relations who are gay - and married. So I can speak with some degree of 'experience'. The most disturbing thing about this whole thread is the way people who disagree with any gay agenda/rights/pencil in as necessary are jumped on almost immediately and accused of being 'homophobic', 'out of touch' etc etc.

Well if anyone actually had a good argument based in truth then they wouldn't be open to this. But there hasn't been ONE single argument here other than "It's immoral" or "It's sick when I think of it".

This is life people. Others are entitled to an opinion. Many people - believe it or not - are indeed shocked by the behaviour of many LGBT people.

Well here you go. these people are CERAINLY out of touch. You know why? Because LGBT people and their actions are the norm in 2011. So to be shocked you would've had to have been living under a rock or be completely out of touch.

Unless of course you said "Shocked" but meant "Disgusted" or something?

I personally think there is nothing worse than a bunch of people parading down a street protesting their 'gay pride'. FFS what is all that about. Is there a 'heterosexual pride' day? No.

That's good. Now that you have said this, care to elaborate on why? With some actual reasoning rather than "Just don't like it"?

Indeed many in the gay community are embarrassed - to put it mildly - by such behavior (but will not voice their opinion for fear of ridicule). Just as gays and their supporters think that same sex relationships is perfectly normal, a huge number of people think the complete opposite - and they don't post on boards.ie.

Of course. People also believe in a man in the sky who watches you every hour of the day and judges you on every decidion you make, making a list of the bad things you do and judges you after you die.......... or at Christmas. i can't remember whether i'm talking about God or Santa!

But really, as a heterosexual person, married for many years, it almost feels nowadays that WE are the ones being viewed freaks by the gay community, simply because some of us don't agree. It is completely ridiculous.

then you are paranoid.

Dudess

Teclo wrote: »

LeixlipRed wrote: »

The gay agenda? :pac:

1. Same sex marriage
2. Same sex civil union
3. Homosexual adoption
4. Anti-'Hate' laws
5. Homosexual friendly school programs

I'm sure you can think of some others

What's "agenda" about that? Oh it's because you don't like gays - I get ya...

Paparazzo

MyKeyG wrote: »

I'm currently considering a career in journalism. It's good to know the competition isn't exactly strong!!!

Well, the way it seems to get ahead in ireland is to be controversial and you'll be noticed.

My name is URL

Teclo wrote: »

1. Same sex marriage
2. Same sex civil union
3. Homosexual adoption
4. Anti-'Hate' laws
5. Homosexual friendly school programs

I'm sure you can think of some others

So basically you see inclusion and tolerance as the 'gay agenda'?

pragmatic1

Freddie59 wrote: »

I personally think there is nothing worse than a bunch of people parading down a street protesting their 'gay pride'. FFS what is all that about. Is there a 'heterosexual pride' day? No.

Wouldnt be huge on pride either but I think the point is that every other day of the year is hetrosexual pride day. Another thing. Gay pride aint for straight people so if it bothers you dont watch it.

mikom

Teclo wrote: »

1. Same sex marriage
2. Same sex civil union
3. Homosexual adoption
4. Anti-'Hate' laws
5. Homosexual friendly school programs

I'm sure you can think of some others

The black agenda.

1. interracial marriage
2. interracial civil union
3. interracial adoption
4. Anti-'Hate' laws
5. Black friendly school programs

See how that works.

Logical Fallacy

Dudess wrote: »

It's utterly retarded to say people support gay rights in order to be fashionable/liberal. Yet even some intelligent people still say it.
And I love the reverse PC brigade who defend a person's right to post unsubstantiated drivel. Maybe if they bothered to support a word they say they wouldn't be jumped on. But oh no... it's "liberal" bullying... ****ing joke.

It's just a default argument to fall back on when people don't have anything else. I've been called left wing and liberal so many times on AH it's crazy...but i would qualify as neither to be honest.

It's something normally bounced around based on one opinion and that's it. "Oh you support gay rights so you must be left wing!!!!!"....hmmmm....doesn't work that way.

Ironically people on both sides will use political orientation in this manner, rather than just discuss the issues...as a lot of people on both sides simply are not equipped to have a decent discussion about anything and prefer to just fire rhetoric at each other.

BBDBB

Teclo wrote: »

1. Same sex marriage
2. Same sex civil union
3. Homosexual adoption
4. Anti-'Hate' laws
5. Homosexual friendly school programs

I'm sure you can think of some others

yeah equality must be terrifying :rolleyes:

strobe

Teclo wrote: »

1. Same sex marriage
2. Same sex civil union
3. Homosexual adoption
4. Anti-'Hate' laws
5. Homosexual friendly school programs

I'm sure you can think of some others

So the gay agenda = propagation of UNDHR Article 1.? I see the problem alright...

Wait, that's sort of considered a good one, as far as declarations go, isn't it? I'm awfully confused.

MrStuffins

Also, it's amazing to me that people who hate those who are different use the term "liberal" as if it's some sort of derogetory term.

Being liberal is being open to new experiences, new points of view, being open minded and not just adhering to everything just because people have done it that way in the past because they've been told to. Being liberal is being free from bigotry.

Since when is that a bad thing?

Dudess

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Lavezzi wrote: »

Completely agree with most of the article. If liberals could take off their PC specs, they'd be able to clearly see that homosexuality is abnormal; it's an environmental disorder. Under 20 years ago homosexuality was illegal in Ireland, but now we're having homosexual presidential candidates?? Talk about tipping the scale. I'm not saying homosexuality is debilitating in the same way as other mental illnesses are. But how can we stand opposed to political corruption and then consider electing someone whose fundamental psychology is corrupted? Gays deserve equal rights as much as any other regular person does. But such a position should be closed to them without question. We need those in the lime-light to set a moral example to others. 'Normalizing' it just adversely affects vulnerable young minds.
Also, to even question whether gays should be allowed to adopt is sick and shows how brainwashed and morally corrupted the Irish liberals truly are.

oohhhh im getting my popcorn for this , well done sir, this is far better than i could ever manage

Oh you're the "I'm not homophobic but" guy...

Dudess

MrStuffins wrote: »

Also, it's amazing to me that people who hate those who are different use the term "liberal" as if it's some sort of derogetory term.

Because they're not capable of critical thinking.

woodoo

I view the optimal family unit as mother father and child(ren). In my eyes that will never change. Its the norm throughout the world and has been the norm since humans began to organise themselves into civilisation.

I'm not a homophobe. I support civil partnership but not marriage or adoption. I think adoption should be aimed at the family unit of man woman and child.

MrStuffins

woodoo wrote: »

I view the optimal family unit as mother father and child(ren). In my eyes that will never change. Its the norm throughout the world and has been the norm since humans began to organise themselves into civilisation.

I'm not a homophobe. I support civil partnership but not marriage or adoption. I think adoption should be aimed at the family unit of man woman and child.

Ok.

So other than "Well, it's the norm", can you tell me any other reason you don't agree with gay marriage or adoption? Or is that it?

strobe

MrStuffins wrote: »

Also, it's amazing to me that people who hate those who are different use the term "liberal" as if it's some sort of derogetory term.

Being liberal is being open to new experiences, new points of view, being open minded and not just adhering to everything just because people have done it that way in the past because they've been told to. Being liberal is being free from bigotry.

Since when is that a bad thing?

Ahh man but you are taking your definition of the word 'liberal' from dictionaries. Everyone knows dictionaries have a heavy liberal bias, I mean it's a well known fact the first dictionary was written by a jewish atheist gay communist midget.

Here is the real definition.

'A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. Some may pretend to be Christians, but they are not, they practice Cafeteria Christianity. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.'

http://conservapedia.com/Liberal


The more you know...

4zn76tysfajdxp

MrStuffins wrote: »

Also, it's amazing to me that people who hate those who are different use the term "liberal" as if it's some sort of derogetory term.

Being liberal is being open to new experiences, new points of view, being open minded and not just adhering to everything just because people have done it that way in the past because they've been told to. Being liberal is being free from bigotry.

Since when is that a bad thing?

"Do-gooder" as a derogatory term pops up as well, which is baffling. How can doing good be a bad thing?

MrStuffins

strobe wrote: »

Ahh man but you are taking your definition of the word 'liberal' from dictionaries. Everyone knows dictionaries have a heavy liberal bias, I mean it's a well known fact the first dictionary was written by a jewish atheist gay communist midget.

Here is the real definition.

'A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. Some may pretend to be Christians, but they are not, they practice Cafeteria Christianity. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.'

http://conservapedia.com/Liberal


The more you know...

Oh yeah... and the dictionary is a book right?

I should've know most of these people would've been unfamiliar with it!

Freddie59

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well if anyone actually had a good argument based in truth then they wouldn't be open to this. But there hasn't been ONE single argument here other than "It's immoral" or "It's sick when I think of it".



Well here you go. these people are CERAINLY out of touch. You know why? Because LGBT people and their actions are the norm in 2011. So to be shocked you would've had to have been living under a rock or be completely out of touch.

Unless of course you said "Shocked" but meant "Disgusted" or something?



That's good. Now that you have said this, care to elaborate on why? With some actual reasoning rather than "Just don't like it"?



Of course. People also believe in a man in the sky who watches you every hour of the day and judges you on every decidion you make, making a list of the bad things you do and judges you after you die.......... or at Christmas. i can't remember whether i'm talking about God or Santa!



then you are paranoid.

Thank you. You've just proven my point.:) You actually couldn't resist that little dig at God (no doubt due to my sig) - the same God that many people believe in and pray to.

I think the 'Gay Pride' thing is pretty simple - except for some.:rolleyes: You say that the whole gay thing is normal in these times. If so, why do you have to have a parade about it? And as for heterosexual pride parades every other day? WTF? Really? Has it come to this?

As for people being 'out of touch', again this is because you don't agree with their outlook on it. And you choose to call ME paranoid?:p

take everything

BBDBB wrote: »

possibly, if thats ok with you?

One-sided offence-taking?

Basically what i'm saying is:
If this was conservative offence-taking, the OP would be reflexively admonished to change the channel/stop reading.

Why can't all offence-taking be treated equally :pac::P

Dudess

woodoo wrote: »

I view the optimal family unit as mother father and child(ren). In my eyes that will never change. Its the norm throughout the world and has been the norm since humans began to organise themselves into civilisation.

I'm not a homophobe. I support civil partnership but not marriage or adoption. I think adoption should be aimed at the family unit of man woman and child.

I don't agree with much of that but at least you can express it in a reasonable manner and you're not forcing it on people.

Freddie59

woodoo wrote: »

I view the optimal family unit as mother father and child(ren). In my eyes that will never change. Its the norm throughout the world and has been the norm since humans began to organise themselves into civilisation.

I'm not a homophobe. I support civil partnership but not marriage or adoption. I think adoption should be aimed at the family unit of man woman and child.

In one. Well said. And without a hint of hysteria or 'paranoia'.:)

Temptamperu

woodoo wrote: »

I view the optimal family unit as mother father and child(ren). In my eyes that will never change. Its the norm throughout the world and has been the norm since humans began to organise themselves into civilisation.

I'm not a homophobe. I support civil partnership but not marriage or adoption. I think adoption should be aimed at the family unit of man woman and child.

You just dont believe in equal rights? who cares what sex the parents are? ive seen more harmful "normal" family units than LBGT ones.