SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Ave Sodalis

fran17 wrote: »

it now has everything to do with the credibility of this forum

I think you lost your ability to state what's credible in this forum when you refused to answer questions and made wild accusations that you couldn't back up.

Kiwi in IE

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats not an answer. Thats a long winded way of saying you refuse to answer.

fran17 wrote: »

#1830? just for the record

And 1830 is:

fran17 wrote: »

could a moderator please clarify for me why a poster who submitted a post which insulted islam,and this post was deemed to be of a certain nature as to be removed immediately,has not received an infraction for this post?
if this is not the correct place to ask this question then please instruct me how to.i would flag the post but it has been removed

Wow!

Obviously you want Joeytheparrot to answer the bizarre rant above, yet you have recently stated that you blatantly refuse to answer questions that you perceive to be off topic in this thread! How is AH moderation relevant to SSM?

You avoidance tactics are astounding!

Links234

P_1 wrote: »

What in the name of Odin's beard do Muhammad or Jesus have to do with a referendum on allowing same sex couples to avail of civil marriage.

At this point I think fran17 is just holding the entire discussion in contempt, and making a downright childish display of nose-thumbing and timewasting. No, not just childish but downright bratty. Here, enjoy the following video, it'll be far more worth your time than the level of 'discussion' the no side are prepared to engage in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qhj3sJ5qs

PopePalpatine

fran17 wrote: »

do you still stand by that post about the prophet Muhammad?

Yes. It's probable that he was hallucinating and/or delusional.

P_1

fran17 wrote: »

it now has everything to do with the credibility of this forum

Right you're religious and believe that allowing SSM is wrong according to your religious beliefs. Quite a lot of people here aren't and think that you're speaking utter hogwash but have offered you the chance to argue your religious case. Thusfar you have spectacularly failed to do so and are offering more ridiculous and ridiculous tangents to avoid answering a simple question that you simply have no answer for.

Now quite what that has to do with the credibility of the forum is beyond me but you are repeatedly shooting your own credibility in the foot with a 12 gauge shotgun.

Annasopra

fran17 wrote: »

#1830? just for the record

What are you on about?

fran17

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes. It's probable that he was hallucinating and/or delusional.

any idea why the post was removed?did they give you an explanation cause they wont reply to me

Corkfeen

fran17 wrote: »

will you answer the question or not?

To clarify,stripteases are attractive. I honestly don't think scouts would have a particular allure to anyone(so stop with these bull**** paedophilia connotations) but pretending that the people in the striptease were young naive teenagers is a lie. Everyone that participated was 18+. There's plenty of inappropriate performances in music and you're picking out one fairly mundane example for your agenda. You're really reaching if you're depending on a 15 year old story.

Also worth noting the response from his spokesperson. I've glanced at the images of the event and can't help but concur with the statement, it was more of a parody than anything else and seems to be latched onto fairly regularly by individuals such as yourself. Ill thought out but nothing as sleazy as what you described.

"The performance was a bit of high camp in the great British tradition of comedy like Benny Hill. It was meant to be fun for an appropriate audience."

fran17 wrote: »

it now has everything to do with the credibility of this forum

I think your credibility is a much bigger issue. You come across as an individual who is incapable of making a semi decent point. You've refuse to refute people's points but expect people to take you seriously?

krudler

fran17 wrote: »

it now has everything to do with the credibility of this forum

because ruining that is your job?

Ave Sodalis

Corkfeen wrote: »

(so stop with these bull**** paedophilia connotations)

Do you know what the irony is? I mean, this is so horribly ironic, it hurts your head to think about. You know the way his main argument is religion and that now he's bringing up the paedophilia thing again? Well, here's where is gets painfully ironic... The main, most high profile cases of gay paedophiles...were priests...

marienbad

sup_dude wrote: »

Do you know what the irony is? I mean, this is so horribly ironic, it hurts your head to think about. You know the way his main argument is religion and that now he's bringing up the paedophilia thing again? Well, here's where is gets painfully ironic... The main, most high profile cases of gay paedophiles...were priests...

Correct me if I am wrong , but as far as I know there is no such thing as gay paedophilia - it is just paedophilia.

Corkfeen

sup_dude wrote: »

Do you know what the irony is? I mean, this is so horribly ironic, it hurts your head to think about. You know the way his main argument is religion and that now he's bringing up the paedophilia thing again? Well, here's where is gets painfully ironic... The main, most high profile cases of gay paedophiles...were priests...

I do think it's worth posting this before Fran lowers his/her self to even lower levels. There is no link between paedophilia and homosexuality.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

Now,since that's all cleared up. I expect Fran will raise the bar of discussion. *bursts out laughing at absurdity of statement*

Links234

Would you like me to settle the whole religion argument once and for all?

Well guys, I am the one true god. How can you tell? It says so right in this post. But I'm a living god, just like Kim-John Un if he were a transgender lesbian metalhead god, and as such your lord thy god is speaking to you all right now. And you know what? That Yahweh fellow is a big pile of bull****, just an illusion created by a first year drama student using a smoke machine, a mop and someone's ratty old coat. Your god is not only A-OK with the whole same sex marriage thing, but she even might partake of it herself. And you don't have to worry about that being taken out of context or being up for interpretation, because your god doesn't rely on some bronze age farmer to get this written down, your god is doing it herself, right here and right now in 2014. If anyone tells you that god is against same sex marriage? Refer them to this post. Don't believe that god has spoken? Refer them to this post. Are we absolutely clear on that? Good, because god says religion has nothing to do with the referendum in the first place and it shouldn't come into a civil issue!

God has spoken. You're welcome.

Ave Sodalis

marienbad wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong , but as far as I know there is no such thing as gay paedophilia - it is just paedophilia.

Oh I agree completely. However, its a distinction certain people on this thread are trying to make. Therefore, I think it should be nipped in the bud before it develops any further by pointing out that by making that distinction, it's bringing to light these cases.

Annasopra

floggg wrote: »

Another thing - you're arguing that i should be denied the right to marry because it's against your book. But your book says let he without sin cast the first stone.

So what right have you to impose our judgement on me? You are allowed sin as you wish as its not the States business, and I'm sure you have. Are you going to tell me you have never done any of the following:

* masturbated;
* had non-marital sex;
*had non procreative sex;
* used contraception;
* given or received oral sex of any variety;
* gotten divorced;
* coveted or lusted after your neighbours wife;
* had sexually impure thoughts;
* committed adultery;
* failed to beat your wife when required to do so by the bible.


And that's just in the sexual/marital realm. I won't get into all the other things that you should be doing per the words of your book.

If you're going to try to impose the morality of your book on me, you should tell us what gives us the right to do so. If you can and do violate your book, then why can't I?

I look forward to your answer.

Edit - you might also kindly address whether or not you think doing (or failing to do as applicable) those things should also be made illegal. If you don't think some or all should be made illegal, please explain why since unlike same sex marriage, those are expressly prohibited by god (don't think god (or his ghost writes) has ever actually said anything about same sex marriage).

I did find one or two half answers to some of these questions going back through old posts.

Nodin

I've gone through the last 3 pages and have no clue what Frans getting excited about. Might somebody fill me in?

Annasopra

Nodin wrote: »

I've gone through the last 3 pages and have no clue what Frans getting excited about. Might somebody fill me in?

Nobody really knows.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

I have so many questions thrown at me you'll have to be patient.this thread is about homosexuality and so keeping on topic I am referring to the bible's teachings on homosexuality.if the topic was related to masturbation,beating of one's wife,eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics then I would gladly reply to those issues if I addressed them in such threads.if we all started answering random questions then the thread topic would never be addressed.
my point on this topic is that there is nowhere in the bible that condones homosexuality and many passages which say the opposite.if you can find me a passage which condones homosexuality then i'll stand corrected?

Franny, Franny, Franny.

I don't think you are stupid enough to believe that nonsense, and we certainly aren't.

You know quite well it's relevant - if you are saying adult relationships and sexual behaviour should be in accordance with God's law, your own compliance with those laws is very relevant.

You can't tell me (an atheist) that I should be subject to them if you (the supposed Christian) don't even follow them.

And in any event, it's certainly more relevant than a deleted post about Muslims or something Elton John did years ago, and yet you seem to think that's something people should address.



The sad thing is m that it took you all day to come up with that pathetic attempt at a side step.

Mr. G

I'm voting in favour of it, although I'm not homosexual. I see it more as a civil rights issue. It should be more accepted.

Personally, I think it's narrow-minded and backwards of people to dismiss gay marriage. For those who are not gay, gay marriage doesn't affect them at all. I do feel that putting adoption on the referendum will affect the overall result as, like has been seen in previous referendums, people may get mixed up in making their decision.

The majority of people I have met (apart from my grandparents) say they don't have a problem with it. One of my friends is gay and I don't have a problem with it. Discrimination on gay rights etc is not as much an issue anymore. I feel if two people of the same sex are in love with eachother, they should be able to marry. Just like a man and a woman can. If people don't have a problem with being gay, then I feel they should not have a problem with a gay marrying another gay person. Afterall, it does not affect them since they are not gay. We are all for diversity yet we cannot be diverse if gay marriage is not accepted.

The percentage of people voting in favour of same sex marriage would be much greater in 10 years time then now as people's attitudes towards gay marriage changes. It's a society thing that won't change over night.

In time I'm sure it will be legalised. If gay marriage is not legalised, surely we are sending the wrong message to younger children that does not teach them that discriminating against LGBTs is wrong. I feel diversity is highly important.

I can't see how people can be strongly against gay marraige? They have a right to vote and are fully entitled to make up their own minds - I respect that, but the logistics of that decision I don't think was fully thought out, but again that's my opinion. In terms of adoption I can understand why people may be against it, however very few Irish children are put up for adoption every year.

I do feel that adoption can be closely linked to marriage and for this reason, I will mention it: Some will say that nature has evolved in such a way that to have a child you must have a man and woman concieve in order to bring a baby into the world. Fair enough. But nature has also evolved in such a way that two men or two women can love each other too, but much find other means in which to bring a child into the world. This is where I think putting both gay marriage and gay adoption will affect the overall turnout and result of the referenda. It's a very contriversial issue that has both sides. There are also some animal species that require two males or two females to concieve, so even in nature there are gay relationships.

Here's a documentary from Prime Time which some people might find interesting in relation to SSM and Adoption.

As a prediction this is what I think will happen:
- Gay marriage will be accepted
- Gay adoption will not be accepted.

That's just a prediction though

J_E

Oh great, just when I had done a great run of not seeing Paddy Manning! Very hyperactive, irritating person to have to listen to, regardless of what opinions you form on the topic.

Nodin

Mr. G wrote: »

As a prediction this is what I think will happen:
- Gay marriage will be accepted
- Gay adoption will not be accepted.

That's just a prediction though

"Gay adoption" is not the subject of this or any other referendum and will be enacted in law before the SSM referendum next year.

Daith

Nodin wrote: »

"Gay adoption" is not the subject of this or any other referendum and will be enacted in law before the SSM referendum next year.

"Gay adoption" is also perfectly legal in Ireland already and has been for a number of years.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

Franny, Franny, Franny.

I don't think you are stupid enough to believe that nonsense, and we certainly aren't.

You know quite well it's relevant - if you are saying adult relationships and sexual behaviour should be in accordance with God's law, your own compliance with those laws is very relevant.

You can't tell me (an atheist) that I should be subject to them if you (the supposed Christian) don't even follow them.

And in any event, it's certainly more relevant than a deleted post about Muslims or something Elton John did years ago, and yet you seem to think that's something people should address.


The sad thing is m that it took you all day to come up with that pathetic attempt at a side step.

My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

Mod: Banned

lazygal

fran17 wrote: »

My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

Do you have sympathy for gay parents who's children are gay?

shruikan2553

fran17 wrote: »

My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You also live a sinful life so why would anyone listen to your morality?

Corkfeen

fran17 wrote: »

My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

True Fran is coming out again.

Links234

But don't anyone dare call him a homophobe or a bigot, because that'd be really wrong :rolleyes:

P_1

fran17 wrote: »

My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

Right lads and ladies, who had 10:50-11:00 on the 8th of July in the 'when will the fire and brimstone get broken out' sweep?

Delirium

fran17 wrote: »

My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

But that's every day! :P

Corkfeen

Links234 wrote: »

But don't anyone dare call him a homophobe or a bigot, because that'd be really wrong :rolleyes:

Even rereading it, I find it pretty disgusting that anyone could write such a message to a fellow human being. If someone holds views such as that, maybe they should consider keeping them to themselves rather than intentionally trying to hurt people.

At least it shows that Fran was never really interested in a proper discussion. All of his/her views don't come from a remotely rational place.