Gays want to take over the rest of Society?

Chips Lovell

Yeah, I mean the whole gay pride things is totally OTT.

It's not like the rest of us make a fuss about our identity, like having a big parade every March to celebrate our Irishness or anything like that.

Dr Bolouswki

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Yeah, I mean the whole gay pride things is totally OTT.

It's not like the rest of us make a fuss about our identity, like having a big parade every March to celebrate our Irishness or anything like that.

Maybe you would if you spent 40 years being shunned and beaten for wanting to kiss your partner.

Edit: Sorry - I get it now

Temptamperu

Freddie59 wrote: »

Care to explain why it shouldn't?

Because it dosent matter what sex the parents are as long as the child is loved.

Spunge

We should have St Patrick's Gay Parade

MrStuffins

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well to start with their hurting the ability for ireland and the world as a whole to accept gay people.

that and they ruin nights out for countless people, theyre always the loudest most annoying people shouting all the way accross a smoking area or pub , basically being assholes in an attempt to be noticed by everyone, then theyre the first ones to call joe duffy when some lad gets fed up and smacks them

your born gay , being a queen is a choice, and one i wish nobody would make

So what you're saying is, there is a certain element of gay people who are loud, annoying and in your opinion are dickheads?

you know there are a lot of straight people who choose to be dickheads too right?

LeixlipRed

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I can understand you disliking OTT campness, fair enough.

But the idea that camp gay men ruin nights out for people is a strange one. unless your night out happens to be a gay bar, in which case it's your fault, not theirs.Can't say it's ever happened to me in any pub I've been in anyway! No one should EVER be going around smacking other people either.

The strange thing is that Mr Cartman's musings on the internet are the online equivalent of the very behaviour he inventsabhors in real life. Real life, just like the internet has this fabulous human capacity, the ignore button.

woodoo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Ok. Care to explain why you think the family should be this way exclusively?

No i don't feel i have to. Its the way i see it and its a subjective thing. Its a personal view. I don't need to justify my feelings to you.

If gay marriage comes in or gay adoption will i be upset? No. I'm not militantly against it. I just don't particularly agree with it.

KeithAFC

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Yeah, I mean the whole gay pride things is totally OTT.

It's not like the rest of us make a fuss about our identity, like having a big parade every March to celebrate our Irishness or anything like that.

I agree. And least Gay pride parades do what they say on the tin. St Patricks day has completely lost its meaning which was a Christian religious holiday.

Logical Fallacy

Arian Bitter Terrapin wrote: »

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

I always love the implication that someone only agree's with a liberal view because it's the cool thing to do, or they want to be seen as smart of something.

It's like the way some Christians will endlessly bang on about how if you were dying you would believe in God.

Last grasp stuff.

DogsyBlanch

There are some people on here who really ought to do a bit of research...
First and foremost evidence strongly shows that homosexuality is not some kind of mental illness as some moron a few pages back suggests. People are gay because that it how mother nature, or god if you prefer, intended them to be.

Studies also show that a child brought up by a homosexual couple suffers no adverse effects whatsoever. If there are children hoping to be adopted ... Presumably because their wonderful hetero parents couldn't look after them.... then I am sure those children would love the opportunity to be raised in a secure and loving home. The gender of those in that home having no importance at all.

And to the fella that said he feels like a freak for expressing his opinion on this subject. Good, I'm glad you do. You should be ashamed of your bigoted illinformed opinions.

Fortunately social progress seems to be pretty unstoppable, though sometimes horribly slow, people are gonna have to get used to it. Just look at the last 20 years in this country.

Chips Lovell

Lads who start fights outside of chippers ruin countless people's nights out. It's really affecting Ireland's ability to accept straight people.

Eric Cartman

MrStuffins wrote: »

So what you're saying is, there is a certain element of gay people who are loud, annoying and in your opinion are dickheads?

you know there are a lot of straight people who choose to be dickheads too right?

yes but those straight people dont play the victim card when you tell them to stop , ive never told an obnoxious straight person to quiet down and been greeted with 'ohh you just hate people from <a location>'

LeixlipRed wrote: »

The strange thing is that Mr Cartman's musings on the internet are the online equivalent of the very behaviour he inventsabhors in real life. Real life, just like the internet has this fabulous human capacity, the ignore button.

the name was chosen because a cartoon character happens to just be a more malicious and extreme version of myself in real life , i could say the same about yourself if you changed your name to IgnorantStalin

Yahew

I for one...

oh

thats been done.

MrStuffins

woodoo wrote: »

No i don't feel i have to. Its the way i see it and its a subjective thing. Its a personal view. I don't need to justify my feelings to you.

If gay marriage comes in or gay adoption will i be upset? No. I'm not militantly against it. I just don't particularly agree with it.

Well I never said you had to, but we're having a discussion. So if you're not going to bother telling us why you feel this way then you shouldn't be partaking in the discussion.

I put it to you that you are either just a closed minded person or you are afraid of homosexuality. I put it to you that you actually khave NO real reason as to why you feel 2 homosexuals would not make appropriate spouses or parents.

I put it to you that you are just fundamentally bigotted which probably isn't your fault but is the truth.

Of course, maybe you are not. If this is not the case, please correct me.But so far you have shown all the signs of a person I have just described. there are many people like you.

It's very possible you have many reasons to want to discriminate against gay people. but your refusal to elaborate and the fashion in which you did it speaks volumes.

MrStuffins

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes but those straight people dont play the victim card when you tell them to stop , ive never told an obnoxious straight person to quiet down and been greeted with 'ohh you just hate people from <a location>'

Well I tell you what, I have had this happen to me (calling out someone for being obnoxious and being accused of racism) with black people, asian people and once by a Morrocan guy while I was in Spain.

It's not an exclusively gay trait believe it or not!

Eric Cartman

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well I tell you what, I have had this happen to me (calling out someone for being obnoxious and being accused of racism) with black people, asian people and once by a Morrocan guy while I was in Spain.

It's not an exclusively gay trait believe it or not!

i am well aware of that, but foreigners are not the topic of this thread

MrStuffins

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i am well aware of that, but foreigners are not the topic of this thread

Nope. And I wasn't talking about foreigners either. The black and asian people I spoke of were actually natives of the place I was in. I wasthe foreigner in both cases.

But what you're doing is trying to pass off a human trait as an exclusively homosexual one. It's silly to be honest!

woodoo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well I never said you had to, but we're having a discussion. So if you're not going to bother telling us why you feel this way then you shouldn't be partaking in the discussion.

I put it to you that you are either just a closed minded person or you are afraid of homosexuality. I put it to you that you actually khave NO real reason as to why you feel 2 homosexuals would not make appropriate spouses or parents.

I put it to you that you are just fundamentally bigotted which probably isn't your fault but is the truth.

Of course, maybe you are not. If this is not the case, please correct me.But so far you have shown all the signs of a person I have just described. there are many people like you.

It's very possible you have many reasons to want to discriminate against gay people. but your refusal to elaborate and the fashion in which you did it speaks volumes.

No i think you are having real problems accepting that not everyone sees the world as you do. Its easier for you to label them as homophobes or bigots than accept the more complicated reality that people just don't agree with your world view.

Its hardly off the wall to consider man woman and child as the ideal family unit. We have thousands of years of human history to go by. Its that where we have come to... where to hold that view i'm an outdated biggot :rolleyes:

Sonics2k

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that and they ruin nights out for countless people, theyre always the loudest most annoying people shouting all the way accross a smoking area or pub , basically being assholes in an attempt to be noticed by everyone, then theyre the first ones to call joe duffy when some lad gets fed up and smacks them

I tend to get a lot more hassle from the regular Cork scumbags, who ironically shout out things like "fággot" "queer" and all that shíte at me.

Oh and yes, personality wise, "screaming queens" annoy me too, but then again so do the bloody airhead girlies that giggle and squeal all the time.
It's just bloody annoying no matter the sexuality, that's a personality dislike which is fair enough.

MrStuffins

woodoo wrote: »

No i think you are having real problems accepting that not everyone sees the world as you do. Its easier for you to label them as homophobes or bigots than accept the more complicated reality that people just don't agree with your world view.

Not at all. I fully accept all opinions contrasting mine. What I tend to do though is, when someone comes and says "Oh, I believe X" and I don't agree with it, I will give them a chance to explain to me why it is that they believe what they do. 99% of the time these people will be happy to elaborate on their views because they have willingly joined an existing discussion, like you did here. A lot of the time I just won't agree but I have to accept that people are different to me.

But when people choose not to elaborate I am left to speculate. And in this case, I think you choose not to elaborate because you actually have no reasoning behind it. You just think that way "Because I just do".

Its hardly off the wall to consider man woman and child as the ideal family unit. We have thousands of years of human history to go by. Its that where we have come to... where to hold that view i'm an outdated biggot :rolleyes:

Well we don't live in history my friend. thousands of years of history saw people being slaughtered for beliving in God. Then people slaughtered for not believing in God, then for not believing in a certain dogma, then for not being of a certain race, killed for saying the earth revolved around the sun, killed for saying the earth was round, history is not your friend in this case i'm afraid.

Now, if you want to elaborate on your views, then go ahead. Otherwise, why are you still here if you have nothing more to add?

LeixlipRed

woodoo wrote: »

Its hardly off the wall to consider man woman and child as the ideal family unit. We have thousands of years of human history to go by. Its that where we have come to... where to hold that view i'm an outdated biggot :rolleyes:

The human race is a million years old first of all. Second of all do you even know when the man/woman/child formulation became prevalent? Only after the industrial revolution really, it's a creation of the system. The most effective child producing machine. That's 250/300 years. Out of a million. You can do the math.

senordingdong

What a cabbage.

Maybe the editor only works Mon - Fri?

woodoo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Now, if you want to elaborate on your views, then go ahead. Otherwise, why are you still here if you have nothing more to add?

Maybe you should take a look back at the OP. I don't recall this thread being solely about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage and adoption. I'm free to post here if i like. You don't decide that. And i will continue to do so as i please.

I will add that if we are asked to vote in a referendum on the issues of gay marriage or adoption i shall be voting NO. I dare say many more will do the same.

donfers

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

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.

well then you completely missed and misunderstood the point i'm afraid

people can post about what they like and disagree with what they like

it's how they do it and what impact it has that concerns me

and i'd say at times it's over the top and it has very little real-world impact and maybe the two are connected and people feel they can be over-zealous because they know their opinions are of little consequence

but never let it be said i don't recognise the appeal of venting, as your pst hints at, i have been guilty of it myself but ultimately that's all it is, hot air and i hope we all realise that

Squall19

woodoo wrote: »

He doesn't agree with gay marriage or gay adoption and there are alot of people out there that agree with him.

I dont care about marriage.

But gays raising kids, adoption, that's sick:mad:

Go make children the proper way sickos.

Newsite

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Yes I know what homophobic means. It was a homophobic article because it made negative generalisations about an entire section of the population.

It means 'fear of homosexuals'. You have no evidence to accuse him of such, he is voicing an opinion to which he is entitled.
What about this journalist's right to offer his opinion?

My name is URL

Squall19 wrote: »

I dont care about marriage.

But gays raising kids, adoption, that's sick:mad:

Go make children the proper way sickos.

Yeah.. in a social housing estate with no income to support them! :rolleyes:

4leto

Newsite wrote: »

It means 'fear of homosexuals'. You have no evidence to accuse him of such, he is voicing an opinion to which he is entitled.
What about this journalist's right to offer his opinion?

What about our right to criticise a journalists opinion.

Spunge

Squall19 wrote: »

I dont care about marriage.

But gays raising kids, adoption, that's sick:mad:

Go make children the proper way sickos.

Why is it sick ?

Delirium

Squall19 wrote: »

I dont care about marriage.

But gays raising kids, adoption, that's sick:mad:

Go make children the proper way sickos.

Do you also hold the same contempt for parents who use IVF?