And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

mikom

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Firstly you seem to have a thing about the Church?! Whats that about?
Secondly I would safely say that the periods tampons towels mooncup heavy flow light flow disposal of sanitary .protection, pain management PMT chat would definitely be more authentic coming from a woman as men, even gay men, simply cannot claim to have any personal experience in this matter, no?For example a man cannot physically demonstrate tampon insertion.

Proper order, mrsbyrne................ :cool:
In a similar vein, this is why I never take relationship and sexual advice from a priest or his string-pullers in Rome.
What the fuck would they know about it.
I suppose if badly stuck they could ask their housekeepers......

1123heavy

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ignore this lad, he's been on previous threads spouting the same guff, when asked to support his views he refuses, repeats the same nonsense over and over before eventually getting banned. Not worth it.

For those unaware, this isn't an adoption referendum.

What exactly is "nonsense" in my post ? care to support your accusation ?

mrsbyrne

bodice ripper wrote: »

It was literally the only parenting task you could think of that absolutely required a vagina.

Well a natural childbirth requires a vagina. Unassisted concepttion requires a vagina.heterosexual intercourse requires a vagina.

Beano

mikom wrote: »

Proper order, mrsbyrne................ :cool:
In a similar vein, this is why I never take relationship and sexual advice from a priest or his string-pullers in Rome.
What the fuck would they know about it.
I suppose if badly stuck they could ask their housekeepers......

or their children

mikom

1123heavy wrote: »

What exactly is "nonsense" in my post ? care to support your accusation ?

Don't mind them, 1123heavy.
I loved the part where you sounded like Fred Phelps astride a horse complete with braveheart blue colouration on your face.

The future is in our hands, make the sensible decision and vote no. Gay people can do whatever they want between themselves, but they cannot and will not have our children !

Beano

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Well a natural childbirth requires a vagina. Unassisted concepttion requires a vagina.heterosexual intercourse requires a vagina.

and how is any of that relevant to gay adoption? which this thread isnt about btw

hotmail.com

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Well a natural childbirth requires a vagina. Unassisted concepttion requires a vagina.heterosexual intercourse requires a vagina.

Lesbian sex too.

Guy:Incognito

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Not at all. A cucumber or a banana has always been just fine.

Would a fleshlight not work for the tampon demo then?

Beano

hotmail.com wrote: »

Lesbian sex too.

well technically that requires 2. just sayin.

gozunda

1123heavy wrote: »

Vote No.

God forbid anyone of you shall have to give up a child to adoption in the future, how can you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you're creating the chance for that poor child to be raised by a same sex couple ? I shudder to think of the trauma it will cause the child and our future generations to come.

The future is in our hands, make the sensible decision and vote no. Gay people can do whatever they want between themselves, but they cannot and will not have our children !

"Our children"?
Gay people have been having and rearing their own children for millennia
I take it from this rant that you believe only heterosexual couples can have and raise children properly :rolleyes:

What about single parents? Should they not raise their own children - whatever their sexual orientation?
What about children reared by extended family of either gender? Whatever their sexual orientation?
What about gay people who are already successfully rearing their own children?

You talked of trauma ...
What about the children reared and abused in religious owned institutions?
What about couples forced to stay together before divorce was made available whose marriages made children's life's hell?
What makes only heterosexual marriage with two people - the only place children should be raised?

BS! The only thing children need is love and a stable relationship with their parent(s) whatever their sexual orientation happens to be.

Personally I would bring in criteria for everyone planning on raising a child with a view to ending scumbag parents automatic right to bring children into this world without any qualification or security for the child.

Just because you have opposing genitalia does not make a person qualified to be a parent...

PopePalpatine

1123heavy wrote: »

What exactly is "nonsense" in my post ? care to support your accusation ?

I think this post rebuts your belief that same-sex parenting will be disastrous.

mrsbyrne

eviltwin wrote: »

What has any of this got to do with SSM again?

Not a thing. I've no idea how we got here. But I see123heavy here now and instead of just ignoring it you'll all just take the bait as usual. So im off .nite now

hotmail.com

It does seem that many adopted people are actually in favour of same sex marriage.

Guy:Incognito

1123heavy wrote: »

Vote No.

God forbid anyone of you shall have to give up a child to adoption in the future, how can you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you're creating the chance for that poor child to be raised by a same sex couple ? I shudder to think of the trauma it will cause the child and our future generations to come.

The future is in our hands, make the sensible decision and vote no. Gay people can do whatever they want between themselves, but they cannot and will not have our children !

I agree, give them to nuns or priests to look after. Sure then can do some odd jobs to earn their keep while theyre there.......

1123heavy

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I hesitate to engage with you, but for the benefit of the more rational people reading this thread...

1) You bring up adoption. Completely and utterly irrelevant.
2) You go on to assume that this is an inherently bad thing, without any support whatsoever - that is a personal bias, not fact.
3) You assume being gay is in itself a bad thing - again, your opinion, not fact.
4) You make a conclusion that people should vote no based on these deeply flawed arguments.

0/4, try harder next time.

What utter bull****.

I could very easily say the exact same thing to you ...

"You go on to assume that this is an inherently good thing, without any support whatsoever - that is a personal bias, not fact"

"You assume being gay is in itself a good thing - again, your opinion, not fact."

Weak and baseless argument. As for adoption, there were pages and pages of people talking about the children that were mentioned on the leaflet and gay people raising children to the "sounds of sodomy" as stated on the flyer. How else do you expect gay people to get their hands on children other than through adoption !?!?

gozunda

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Not a thing. I've no idea how we got here. But I see123heavy here now and instead of just ignoring it you'll all just take the bait as usual. So im off .nite now

So you were just baiting? Nice ...

mikom

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Not a thing. I've no idea how we got here.

Could you not consult your handbook?..............

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

bodice ripper

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Well a natural childbirth requires a vagina. Unassisted concepttion requires a vagina.heterosexual intercourse requires a vagina.

Did I miss something? Are we just listing the uses for a vagina now?


Spit it out mrs.byrne, have you a view on this horrific leaflet? Or have you come in purely for somewhere to look for the atheist/liberal conspiracy to demean the church?

Deenie123

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Well a natural childbirth requires a vagina. Unassisted concepttion requires a vagina.heterosexual intercourse requires a vagina.

Yes but the act of same sex marriage doesn't require natural childbirth, unassisted conception or heterosexual intercourse.

The act of adoption doesn't either.

I must say, mrsbyrne, you've some level of fascination with the vagina. Is it a case of "the lady doth protest too much"?

mrsbyrne

gozunda wrote: »

So you were just baiting? Nice ...

ah Jesus1133heavy is obviously suffering from mental health problems. Instead of just ignoring him and letting him go away you all will get into a meaningless slanging match which is just a repeat of a previous meaningless slanging match. What's the point?

mrsbyrne

bodice ripper wrote: »

Did I miss something? Are we just listing the uses for a vagina now?


Spit it out mrs.byrne, have you a view on this horrific leaflet? Or have you come in purely for somewhere to look for the atheist/liberal conspiracy to demean the church?

My view on the leaflet is quite clear s few pages back. Quite clear.

bodice ripper

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, actually. I'm not making any judgement on whether or not it's a good or bad thing. I'm voting yes on this referendum based purely on the fact that it will have no negative effects on me while making other people happy.

Not even rising to the bait on your adoption comment, it's been dealt with too many times already.

This guy just floats around winding people up, responding to nothing and getting banned.

Is this the one who just finished the leaving? I seem to remember someone having remarkably angry opinions about long term relationships for someone who has only been legal for a year...

Annasopra

mrsbyrne wrote: »

ah Jesus1133heavy is obviously suffering from mental health problems.

What?
A couple of internet posts and you're a psychiatrist making diagnosis?

mrsbyrne

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would a fleshlight not work for the tampon demo then?

You havnt seen many vaginas, have you?

Annasopra

Why do you need live tampon demos though? Did you get one Mrs Byrne?

hotmail.com

mrsbyrne wrote: »

You havnt seen many vaginas, have you?

How often do you do this demonstration?

gozunda

1123heavy wrote: »

...How else do you expect gay people to get their hands on children other than through adoption !?!?

Oh deary me ...

Do we have to really explain the birds and bees to you? Seriously

Their are many ways outside 'adoption' that gay parents 'get their hands on children' (sic)

Let me list some for you -

A gay parent conceive and raises their own child - with a partner of their choice very common ime
A gay parent raises a child as a guardian
A gay parent fosters a child in need of a stable home environment
And yes even a gay person may 'adopt' a child subject to the usual stringent checks

My concern for children is them being raised /educatedby extreme religionists who attempt to pervert normal childhood development with concepts such as hate, damnation and punishment

gozunda

mrsbyrne wrote: »

ah Jesus1133heavy is obviously suffering from mental health problems. Instead of just ignoring him and letting him go away you all will get into a meaningless slanging match which is just a repeat of a previous meaningless slanging match. What's the point?

Have I missed something ?

Who is Jesus1133heavy???

There was a poster called 1123heavy or something that didn't know about the birds and the bees but I don't think he referred to himself as Jesus as far as I remember. It's getting late - I'm off to bed

Edit: just checked - that guy ain't Jesus for sure ...

PopePalpatine

gozunda wrote: »

Oh deary me ...

Do we have to really explain the birds and bees to you? Seriously

Their are many ways outside 'adoption' that gay patents 'get their hands on children' (sic)

There's something about his posts that wouldn't be out of place at Youth Defence's forums.

One eyed Jack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A priest knows **** all about marraige

Does a doctor have to have had an illness in order to understand how to treat it?

Do priests not usually have parents growing up who are married, relations who are married, friends who are married?

What does anyone know about marriage that a priest doesn't, before they get married?

Chances are the priest has experience of more marriages than most people, so to suggest they know fcukall about marriage would be an ill informed assertion.

It's not like priests live in a bubble excluded from society either.

but try getting married without going to marriage classes run by them.

Plenty of people get married without going to marriage classes run by the RCC?

Isn't the whole point of the referendum to include LGBT people in the number of people who opt for civil marriage?