Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?
Options
Comments
-
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »QUOTE]Perhaps your words are failing you due to the fact that you do not appear to be using them correctly.
In fairness, he has demonstrated that problem a lot in this thread.IrishJack89 wrote: »Its not exactly a threat because its not like the whole world is gonna turn gay, would 5% be a reasonable estimated statisic? In saying that I don't agree with it, not a homophobe but I just can't see how people can be homosexuals. I personally think homosexuality is completely based entirely on one been a nympho. Sorry to offend people but whenever you see a gay couple they always go over board with the whole lovey dovey stuff and reckon its probably easier for a homosexual to get sex then a straight person(without oaying that is) hence the rise of the homosexual...
I think it's about 3.8% according to an article i read recently.
Not sure i buy the rest of the post...just kind of seems like you are over generalising towards straight and gay people.
I know plenty of straight folk getting plenty of sex, and i know gay people who never manage to get themselves laid.0 -
-
hire a gay porn movie and you will see how *they* do it.
Sorry to offend people,
Oh no your not!
Ah you prefer the whole hate ya hate ya stuff?
FYP!
The first part of your post was really stupid, the second part was pretty stupid and the last part was plain stupid. Fair play! Your getting better, maybe next you'll post something thats worth acknowledging 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Killer Pigeon wrote: »Theoretically speaking, all you need is one straight man in the world to keep the human race going.
"We need rest. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised."
0 -
Shoit.. I've been saying Holy sea all these years.. what an idiot
Not as good as Dave Allen's old story of first learning to bless himself at a funeral and being convinced that the mantra was "In the name of the father, and of the son, and into the hole he goes".Are gay couples going to say that now that nature itself must change as it discriminates against them when it comes to having children that are biologically from both of the gay couple?
If they do then we can deal with that. However maybe it would be more productive to deal with what they do say rather than imagined lunatic ravings you invent on their behalf?
Plus be somewhat careful about talking about Traditions. Marriage as it is now has not been the norm for as long as you may think. As they say however about people like the Pope... the ideas espoused based on these books appear to be indistinguishable from personal opinion.Captain McDuck wrote: »Don't tell me a kid growing up with two Daddies is not going to get absolutely hounded for his/her entire childhood.
So do the children of red headed parents at times. And Handicapped parents. I guess we should be sterilizing them too under your lovely little population control program. Oh and children of single parents should likely be rehomed because they get hounded for only having one parent. Also may as well just terminate them if they have to wear glasses as they get hounded for that too.Father Damo wrote: »Of course they are. Usually when this issue is brought up some gobshh1te chimes in with "kids get beaten in school for being, fat, speccy, freckled, ginger, black......".
Oh look the old "I know why the point is wrong so I am going to pre-empt people showing it is wrong by calling them names in advance" trick. Much easier to call names rather than deal with valid points.... especially if your idea of an intellectual reply to a post is "Yak yak yak", content which says more about you than anyone else.
And the fact is that it is a valid point to highlight the fact that children get hounded and bullied all the time..... usually a target is picked first and justification for the bullying tacked on in retrospect.
If a kid if going to get bullied, the kid is going to get bullied. Having gay parents will just be the retrospective justification for it, or the material used for it. If not that, something else will be found and if nothing can be found something will be made up.When it comes to adoption the rights of the parents take second place to what is best for the child. There is no point dismissing the bullying aspect with some emotional tripe about banning gingers from having children.
It is not emotional tripe, it is valid analogy to highlight the weakness of the argument. The bullying argument is made usually by those who have little or no idea about the dynamics of bullying. It attributes more thought process to the system than actually occurs.
Bullying is a cowardly act based on a coward finding an easy target, someone weaker or more vulnerable than them. Someone who will not stand up to them, retaliate etc. That is how bullys pick targets.
Retrospectively they will then find material to use during the bullying and to justify the bullying. Hair color, some aspect of the childs parents, physical prowess, facial or body differences. Anything that they can single out as "different".
In other words having gay parents is not going to fuel more bullying. If the kid will be bullied he or she will be bullied, regardless of the sexual configuration of the parental unit. Having chosen the target, if that target has gay parents THEN this will be used in the bullying. If not then something else will be found or... simply made up.
If a child is going to be bullied then simply legislating that his adoptive parents will not be gay is going to do literally nothing to prevent it. The bullying argument is just scaremongering nonsense from the naysayers in this context.
Also two wrong do not make a right. The "bullying" argument is taking a crime perpetrated by others and curtailing the rights of others based on it. If someone is a bully then that is their crime and a problem to be resolved... it is not the justification to throw out the total non-sequitur "Therefore gay people should not be allowed adopt". It makes as much sense as saying "Some people steal expensive cars, therefore people should not be allowed buy expensive cars". Or it smacks of the kind of rhetoric of "Women should not dress sexy in case they get raped". The crimes of one group are not a valid argument in a discussion on the rights of a completely separate group yet this is the kind of rhetoric being offered here.Father Damo wrote: »Final point
I think most of us doubt that, probably even yourself. Time will tell.....Father Damo wrote: »People bringing up Martin L King....
... did not take long did it.Father Damo wrote: »Check my first post in this thread. Moronic arguement.
Thankfully we do not live in a world where simply dismissing arguments by calling them moronic actually makes the arguments go away, or take on the attribute of being moronic. Invective such as this is just a replacement for a retort which you do not have and highlights.... like waving a massive flag.... that you do not have.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement