WHY THE GAY MARRIAGE VOTE IS IN BIG TROUBLE

jubamapo

I was going to vote yes but after reading what someone posted on reddit.com Im not so sure.This poster put up links to Gay scandals involving pedophilia. He mentioned Senator Norris ties to the Paedophile information exchange and calling for the abolishment of the age of consent.

There was info posted about some famous gay rights activist in the states called Terry Bean. He donated half a million dollars to Obamas re-election campaign (no wonder Obamas thoughts evolved on gay marriage),flew with him in airforce one and was pictured with the president and first lady at the white house.last October 2014 Terry Bean was arrested with his partner and now faces charges of raping a 15 year old boy in a hotel room.
Then the poster mentioned about a financial director at LGBTQ gay pride Dublin having 8 convictions in the U.K. for sexually abusing a 13 year old boy saying he got an 18 month custodial sentence.
There was also something in the post about "Gay perverts sodomising each other on an Irish beach in broad daylight in front of children"

You will have to Google this information to verify what I am saying,because I am a new poster on boards.ie it says I cannot attach URLS yet.

here is the text of a newspaper article about Senator Norris ties to the paedophile information exchange (the link for this would not work so I copied and pasted to here) -
The newspaper (Irish mail on sunday) also mentions Norris’ support for a pro-pedophile organization in the 1980s called the Paedophile Information Exchange. Norris was a founding member of the International Gay Association in the 1980s and passed two motions.
“One called for the abolition of the age of consent, whilst the second called for an international solidarity campaign on behalf of the Paedophile Information Exchange.
“At the time of the letter, members of exchange were being prosecuted for ‘conspiracy to corrupt public morals’ over ads that appeared in a magazine that were alleged to have promoted indecent acts between adults and children.”
The report continues “One letter [from the International Gay Association] seeking support for the exchange, dated May 13, 1981, said: ‘PIE is an organization set up in the ‘70s with two aims: to provide a counseling and support service for isolated paedophiles, and to campaign against the legal and social oppression of paedophilia”.

I am sorry but there seems to be a common thread of high profile gay activists tainted with the whiff of pedophilia,what does that say about the people they represent ? Voters are just going to think there is a hidden agenda by the gay rights movement to legalise adult /child sexual relations down the line once gay marriage is voted in.Consequently they will vote NO.Just like they voted NO for Senator Norris in the presidential election a few years ago for the same reason.

When it comes to Child Safety,most people always err on the side of caution,so for this reason I will be voting NO to gay marriage.I will also be advising all my family,friends and colleagues to also vote NO on account of these Gay/Paedo scandals.
I think gays have scored another own goal.First they were tied to originating AIDS now there is even more fuel to the fire with gay/paedo associations.This is not helped by gay people waxing lyrical about man/boy sexual relations in ancient Greece.

BaronVon

No straight people have sexual convictions?

So you think gay people, in loving relationships, aren't entitled to have that love officially recognised, because of what a few people have done? That's not a very open minded viewpoint.

Of course, I would also wonder why you're posting this in the Atheism forum......

lazygal

That's a whole lot of conspiracy for a Sunday morning.

Wang King

Lets see how many celibate priests have sexual convictions against their name too?

efb

2+2= a million!!!!

Hercule Poirot

You cannot punish the many for the sins of the few

Rabo Karabekian

I presume you're also against straight marriage, then? Because I heard of a good number of cases where straight people were involved in paedophilia.

But yeah, your whole post doesn't make any sense at all.

DoYouEvenLift

Whatever about your friends and family but for your own sake, do not raise such a discussion and points with your colleagues.

Quazzie

Not sure what your post has to do with religion to be honest.

Eh..... down with the gheys. They invented Greece ya know.

I think you're lying about initially voting yes....

rolando3

jubamapo wrote: »

I was going to vote yes

The biggest lie of the whole rotten piece.

RobAMerc

I admit I will be voting yes, but is that the reason I seem to only see idiotic drivel like this post from the No camp ?
I think the No campaign need to actively distance themselves from this tosh before fence sitters become militant Yes campaigners !

jubamapo

infacteh wrote: »

No straight people have sexual convictions?

So you think gay people, in loving relationships, aren't entitled to have that love officially recognised, because of what a few people have done? That's not a very open minded viewpoint.

Of course, I would also wonder why you're posting this in the Atheism forum......[Check out marriagedebate dot com if you want an additional insight into why I am voting NO. Im sure you will reply with the predictable "your just a homophobe and a bigot if you dont agree with gay marriage" accusation.I will have you know I have socialised and got on great with homosexual folks over the years. I have great compassion and empathy for the disorder they have.

I also have great compassion and empathy for Heroin addicts and Prostitutes who along with Homosexuals and many others also are barred from donating blood by the Irish blood transfusion service.

The European court of Human rights says Gays have no right to marriage as does the United nations charter of Human rights.

If you call me a homophobe and bigot then by the same logic you are calling the European court of human rights,the United nations,and the Blood transfusion service homophobes and bigots too.
You cannot redefine marriage it is impossible,even if the referendum is successful,gay marriage is not really Marriage.
Just as you cannot redefine your pet dog to be an Elephant by describing it as Grey with big flappy ears you cannot redefine marriage.
The dog is still a dog and marriage is still between one man and one woman.

Annasopra

Saying gay people have a disorder is homophobic and bigoted.

You are homophobic and bigoted.

weisses

jubamapo wrote: »

I have great compassion and empathy for the disorder they have.

Ahhhhhhh

Bye Bye

rozeboosje

weisses wrote: »

Ahhhhhhh

Bye Bye

Exactly. The post isn't worth responding to. It's deliberately inflammatory and designed to provoke a knee-jerk response. What's the word for that again? Something Scandinavian....

MrPudding

jubamapo wrote: »

[

The European court of Human rights says Gays have no right to marriage

Let me just pick you up on this. A lot of stuff to do with the ECoHR is quite nuanced, and as a result it is very easily twisted to suit a particular agenda. And I am guessing that is what has happened here. I presume you picked this 'fact' up from one of anti-SSM sites.

The EU institutions have a general principle of equality, you can see this running through pretty much everything they do, equality of opportunity and well as equality of rights. The issue is, they do not have full authority over all aspects of the lives of Europeans. Certain things are considered to be within 'the margins of appreciation' for the individual states. SSM is one such 'thing'.

When a SSM case was brought before the ECoHR that court found it did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter, it is a complex and controversial issue, like taxation, and, like taxation, falls within the margin of appreciation for the individual states.

So, you are factually incorrect when you say the the ECoHR said gay people have no right to SSM, they actually said this is not something we can pass judgement on. Very, very different. Whilst it is pure, but reasonably educated, speculation of my part, I would suggest that had the ECoHR actually heard this case it would have found in favour of SSM.

MrP

magicbastarder

jubamapo wrote: »

I have great compassion and empathy for the disorder they have.

snap! i have great compassion and empathy for the disorder you have!

eviltwin

New user comes on with a deliberately inflammatory post. You need to get a life mate.

jubamapo

I dont see the ordinary decent gay folks or liberal straights shouting from the roof top to condemn these gay perverts on the beach sodomising in broad daylight in front of children or the convicted paedophile financial director at LGBTQ gay pride Dublin or Senator Norris ties to pedophilia who are not aiding their cause . The silence is deafening.That implies a tacit acceptance by the liberal left of lewdness,public indecency and pedophilia.
Their quick enough to call for the leaders of the Muslim communities to condemn Islamic fundamentalism and cause puerile gratuitous offence to them "because we can". Double standards indeed. Just to be clear I utterly condemn the Paris atrocities and all the other ones too.

derekon

eviltwin wrote: »

New user comes on with a deliberately inflammatory post. You need to get a life mate.

Perfect reply!

D

Annasopra

OP should you not be busy handing out sounds of sodomy leaflets?

DeJa VooDoo

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

You cannot punish the many for the sins of the few

In this country?
A percentage of peado priests and they're all paedo priests.
A few thugs join the water protests and all water protesters are thugs.

Seems one can punish many when it suits a certain agenda.

irishgrover

jubamapo; I respect the fact that you have an opinion and I respect that fact that you have done your internet investigations in order to educate yourself. However I disagree with your findings. In order to demonstrate my point, can I please set you the following homework with regards to further research......
Take any lifestyle or any profession you want, literally anything for your case study.....
try hetrosexuals, gay people, bisexuals, transgender, homo phobics, teachers, lawyers, politicians, law enforcement, childcare, asians, blacks, whites, soldiers, sailors, candlestick makers..
Now do some research to find single cases of or organised child abuse rings within your demographic. You will find many examples unfortunately.
If we were to follow your logic the most obvious thing we would outlaw to protect children from sexual abuse would be a.) direct family b.) wider family c.) friends and neighbours
Your post and analysis is simplistic, flawed and lacking intelligence....

MrPudding

irishgrover wrote: »

jubamapo; I respect the fact that you have an opinion and I respect that fact that you have done your internet investigations in order to educate yourself. However I disagree with your findings. In order to demonstrate my point, can I please set you the following homework with regards to further research......
Take any lifestyle or any profession you want, literally anything for your case study.....
try hetrosexuals, gay people, bisexuals, transgender, homo phobics, teachers, lawyers, politicians, law enforcement, childcare, asians, blacks, whites, soldiers, sailors, candlestick makers..
Now do some research to find single cases of or organised child abuse rings within your demographic. You will find many examples unfortunately.
If we were to follow your logic the most obvious thing we would outlaw to protect children from sexual abuse would be a.) direct family b.) wider family c.) friends and neighbours
Your post and analysis is simplistic, flawed and lacking intelligence....

I think we need a TL:DR for him...

OP, your post is bad and you should feel bad.

MrP

jubamapo

MrPudding wrote: »

Let me just pick you up on this. A lot of stuff to do with the ECoHR is quite nuanced, and as a result it is very easily twisted to suit a particular agenda. And I am guessing that is what has happened here. I presume you picked this 'fact' up from one of anti-SSM sites.

The EU institutions have a general principle of equality, you can see this running through pretty much everything they do, equality of opportunity and well as equality of rights. The issue is, they do not have full authority over all aspects of the lives of Europeans. Certain things are considered to be within 'the margins of appreciation' for the individual states. SSM is one such 'thing'.

When a SSM case was brought before the ECoHR that court found it did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter, it is a complex and controversial issue, like taxation, and, like taxation, falls within the margin of appreciation for the individual states.

So, you are factually incorrect when you say the the ECoHR said gay people have no right to SSM, they actually said this is not something we can pass judgement on. Very, very different. Whilst it is pure, but reasonably educated, speculation of my part, I would suggest that had the ECoHR actually heard this case it would have found in favour of SSM.

MrP[ "falls within the margin of appreciation for the individual states" With regard to that MrP can you specify any individual state that when a referendum on gay marriage was put to the electorate rather than imposed undemocratically (as in France last year) by the judiciary - that it passed ? It will be interesting to see the outcome in Slovakias referendum next month]

fran17

jubamapo wrote: »

I was going to vote yes but after reading what someone posted on reddit.com Im not so sure.This poster put up links to Gay scandals involving pedophilia. He mentioned Senator Norris ties to the Paedophile information exchange and calling for the abolishment of the age of consent.

There was info posted about some famous gay rights activist in the states called Terry Bean. He donated half a million dollars to Obamas re-election campaign (no wonder Obamas thoughts evolved on gay marriage),flew with him in airforce one and was pictured with the president and first lady at the white house.last October 2014 Terry Bean was arrested with his partner and now faces charges of raping a 15 year old boy in a hotel room.
Then the poster mentioned about a financial director at LGBTQ gay pride Dublin having 8 convictions in the U.K. for sexually abusing a 13 year old boy saying he got an 18 month custodial sentence.
There was also something in the post about "Gay perverts sodomising each other on an Irish beach in broad daylight in front of children"

You will have to Google this information to verify what I am saying,because I am a new poster on boards.ie it says I cannot attach URLS yet.

here is the text of a newspaper article about Senator Norris ties to the paedophile information exchange (the link for this would not work so I copied and pasted to here) -
The newspaper (Irish mail on sunday) also mentions Norris’ support for a pro-pedophile organization in the 1980s called the Paedophile Information Exchange. Norris was a founding member of the International Gay Association in the 1980s and passed two motions.
“One called for the abolition of the age of consent, whilst the second called for an international solidarity campaign on behalf of the Paedophile Information Exchange.
“At the time of the letter, members of exchange were being prosecuted for ‘conspiracy to corrupt public morals’ over ads that appeared in a magazine that were alleged to have promoted indecent acts between adults and children.”
The report continues “One letter [from the International Gay Association] seeking support for the exchange, dated May 13, 1981, said: ‘PIE is an organization set up in the ‘70s with two aims: to provide a counseling and support service for isolated paedophiles, and to campaign against the legal and social oppression of paedophilia”.

I am sorry but there seems to be a common thread of high profile gay activists tainted with the whiff of pedophilia,what does that say about the people they represent ? Voters are just going to think there is a hidden agenda by the gay rights movement to legalise adult /child sexual relations down the line once gay marriage is voted in.Consequently they will vote NO.Just like they voted NO for Senator Norris in the presidential election a few years ago for the same reason.

When it comes to Child Safety,most people always err on the side of caution,so for this reason I will be voting NO to gay marriage.I will also be advising all my family,friends and colleagues to also vote NO on account of these Gay/Paedo scandals.
I think gays have scored another own goal.First they were tied to originating AIDS now there is even more fuel to the fire with gay/paedo associations.This is not helped by gay people waxing lyrical about man/boy sexual relations in ancient Greece.

I myself will also be voting no in the upcoming referendum.Firstly from a religious standpoint as marriage is,has and always will be first and foremost a religious ceremony.As Pope Francis declared yesterday anything else is simply "an attempt to redefine the very institution of marriage".All attempts to dilute and redefine with whatever mutated version of marriage is as the pope said "disfiguring Gods plan for creation".I believe its very sad and regrettable that,if passed,society will be forcefully legislated to recognise this redefined abomination.
As for the link between homosexual men and paedophilia,well of course there is unfortunately paedophilia in all sections of society,both straight and gay.However,as much of the gay society is still by and large in the shadows then we can only take public gay figures into consideration.So when you take characters such as Terry Bean,David Norris,Elton John,Michael Barrymore,George Michael and the as yet unnamed director of lgbtq Dublin and look at there individual points of view on issues such as drugs,monogamy,pederasty and age of consent then definite question must arise.
There may be many good members of the gay community but as of yet due to either disinterest,shame or lack of strength they refuse to acknowledge what is a very sinister undercurrent in the lifestyle of the sexually active gay man.As the debate intensifies over the coming months these issues must be addressed.

Triceratops Ballet

jubamapo wrote: »

I dont see the ordinary decent gay folks or liberal straights shouting from the roof top to condemn these gay perverts on the beach sodomising in broad daylight in front of children

Because straight couples don't engage in sexual acts in inappropriate places, or practice sodomy.

OP vote no if you want and if you truely believe the sensationalist tripe you're spouting, but your points don't stand up to scrutiny and you certainly aren't going to convince many to change their minds with this nonsense.

I would certainly hope that this is not the kind of bull that the no campaign will be shoving in our faces over the ext few months. Aside from being disgusting and unfounded its patronising as hell.

Wang King

Perhaps OP should contact his local TD about his deep rooted feelings on the subject..... Kinds hope its Leo Varadkar

Triceratops Ballet

fran17 wrote: »

is a very sinister undercurrent in the lifestyle of the sexually active gay man

Hurrah! Marraige for gay women, miniature flags for gay men!

magicbastarder

fran17 wrote: »

I myself will also be voting no in the upcoming referendum.Firstly from a religious standpoint as marriage is,has and always will be first and foremost a religious ceremony.

'from a religious standpoint, marriage is religious' is a ludicrous position to be taking.

my wife and i got married (i'm male, btw) two and a half years ago, and there was not a whiff of religion in the ceremonies - one in the registry office and a humanist one several days later with just over 100 people present. are we not married?

shruikan2553

Ffs, I'm not reading this **** until people learn to quote.

jubamapo

irishgrover wrote: »

jubamapo; I respect the fact that you have an opinion and I respect that fact that you have done your internet investigations in order to educate yourself. However I disagree with your findings. In order to demonstrate my point, can I please set you the following homework with regards to further research......
Take any lifestyle or any profession you want, literally anything for your case study.....
try hetrosexuals, gay people, bisexuals, transgender, homo phobics, teachers, lawyers, politicians, law enforcement, childcare, asians, blacks, whites, soldiers, sailors, candlestick makers..
Now do some research to find single cases of or organised child abuse rings within your demographic. You will find many examples unfortunately.
If we were to follow your logic the most obvious thing we would outlaw to protect children from sexual abuse would be a.) direct family b.) wider family c.) friends and neighbours
Your post and analysis is simplistic, flawed and lacking intelligence....

[I agree with you that sexual child abuse exists in every demographic but what other demographic embraces lewdness and public indecency and Man/Boy sexual relations (ancient Greece etc.) as part of its Culture.My point is there are a lot of people not willing to endorse that culture with a badge of approval by voting yes to gay marriage. ]

MrPudding

jubamapo wrote: »

Let me just pick you up on this. A lot of stuff to do with the ECoHR is quite nuanced, and as a result it is very easily twisted to suit a particular agenda. And I am guessing that is what has happened here. I presume you picked this 'fact' up from one of anti-SSM sites.

The EU institutions have a general principle of equality, you can see this running through pretty much everything they do, equality of opportunity and well as equality of rights. The issue is, they do not have full authority over all aspects of the lives of Europeans. Certain things are considered to be within 'the margins of appreciation' for the individual states. SSM is one such 'thing'.

When a SSM case was brought before the ECoHR that court found it did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter, it is a complex and controversial issue, like taxation, and, like taxation, falls within the margin of appreciation for the individual states.

So, you are factually incorrect when you say the the ECoHR said gay people have no right to SSM, they actually said this is not something we can pass judgement on. Very, very different. Whilst it is pure, but reasonably educated, speculation of my part, I would suggest that had the ECoHR actually heard this case it would have found in favour of SSM.

MrP[ "falls within the margin of appreciation for the individual states" With regard to that MrP can you specify any individual state that when a referendum on gay marriage was put to the electorate rather than imposed undemocratically (as in France last year) by the judiciary - that it passed ? It will be interesting to see the outcome in Slovakias referendum next month]

Couple of points. First, sort out your quotes, it isn't hard.

Secondly, what does this have to do with the point I made? Do you accept that the point you made about the ECoHR saying there was no right to SSM? And if you do, do you further accept that continuing to use this line of argument is extremely dishonest?

Also, what exactly do you mean by imposed undemocratically? My understanding is France holds free and fair elections on a regular basis and the purpose of those elections is for the population of Franc to democratically elect their government. Once elected that government will enact legislation. Is it your view that any legislation passed by any democratically elected government is undemocratic unless it is passed by a referendum? If so, you have a strange, and completely unworkable idea of democracy.

Final point, can you please withdraw the blatant lie in your OP where you claimed you were originally going to vote yes?

MrP

weisses

fran17 wrote: »

I myself will also be voting no in the upcoming referendum.Firstly from a religious standpoint as marriage is,has and always will be first and foremost a religious ceremony.

The ceremony of marriage pre dates religion (catholic) involvement by a couple of thousand years.

The rest of your post is just a continuation from your false assumptions

sydthebeat

Maybe I'm stupid but i see nothing in the OP to do with marriage or atheism?

MrPudding

fran17 wrote: »

I myself will also be voting no in the upcoming referendum.Firstly from a religious standpoint as marriage is,has and always will be first and foremost a religious ceremony.

What? Civil marriage is a religious ceremony?

fran17 wrote: »

As Pope Francis declared yesterday anything else is simply "an attempt to redefine the very institution of marriage".All attempts to dilute and redefine with whatever mutated version of marriage is as the pope said "disfiguring Gods plan for creation".I believe its very sad and regrettable that,if passed,society will be forcefully legislated to recognise this redefined abomination.

OK, but why should your supernatural beliefs impinge on the secular and non-religious rights of people that don't actually follow your particular supernatural beliefs? You need a justification for that. Further, you need to be able to justify it from outside your particular belief system, otherwise it can't be accepted by those that don't follow that same belief system.

fran17 wrote: »

As for the link between homosexual men and paedophilia,well of course there is unfortunately paedophilia in all sections of society,both straight and gay.However,as much of the gay society is still by and large in the shadows then we can only take public gay figures into consideration.So when you take characters such as Terry Bean,David Norris,Elton John,Michael Barrymore,George Michael and the as yet unnamed director of lgbtq Dublin and look at there individual points of view on issues such as drugs,monogamy,pederasty and age of consent then definite question must arise.

Whist I have not bother to do it, I am sure some research would yield plenty of results for heterosexual individuals with the same view points as the few you have listed.

That a number of people have viewpoints that you, or even a majority of society, find repugnant is not sufficient justification for discrimination against the entire class of people that those individual happen to belong to.

The vast majority of child abuse takes place within the family. If your concern is for children then perhaps you need to look at campaigning against 'normal' marriage and may be even families...

fran17 wrote: »

There may be many good members of the gay community but as of yet due to either disinterest,shame or lack of strength they refuse to acknowledge what is a very sinister undercurrent in the lifestyle of the sexually active gay man.As the debate intensifies over the coming months these issues must be addressed.

How regularly do you publicly acknowledge the sinister undercurrent of the heterosexual lifestyle?

MrP

MrPudding

sydthebeat wrote: »

Maybe I'm stupid but i see nothing in the OP to do with marriage or atheism?

We talk about a wide range of subject in this forum. SSM is a fairly popular topic here, mostly because, I think, the arguments against it tend to be religious in nature. it is another example of the religious trying to enforce their beliefs on those that do not necessarily follow those beliefs.

MrP

robindch

jubamapo wrote: »

I was going to vote yes [...]

And I'm studying for the priesthood

CptMackey

What am I reading. Have I travelled back in time to the 50's?

Do people actually believe the bigotry that is being spouted .

Also a new account to promote this bigotry.
How about all the sexual crimes committed by straight people? Or the church .

Annasopra

I reckon the op writes for the Kilkenny Journal

NuMarvel

jubamapo wrote: »

I was going to vote yes

jubamapo wrote: »

gay marriage is not really Marriage.

One of these things is not like the other.

jubamapo wrote: »

I will have you know I have socialised and got on great with homosexual folks over the years. I have great compassion and empathy for the disorder they have.

I note you use the past tense when describing your relationship with gay people. Presumably it stopped being the present tense when you told them about your compassion of their "disorder".

Wang King

sydthebeat wrote: »

Maybe I'm stupid but i see nothing in the OP to do with marriage or atheism?

You're correct on both counts

fran17

magicbastarder wrote: »

'from a religious standpoint, marriage is religious' is a ludicrous position to be taking.

my wife and i got married (i'm male, btw) two and a half years ago, and there was not a whiff of religion in the ceremonies - one in the registry office and a humanist one several days later with just over 100 people present. are we not married?

These ceremonies involved a blessing from a priest etc?

efb

fran17 wrote: »

These ceremonies involved a blessing from a priest etc?

None I've been at

rozeboosje

hoodwinked

CptMackey wrote: »

What am I reading. Have I travelled back in time to the 50's?

Do people actually believe the bigotry that is being spouted .

Also a new account to promote this bigotry.
How about all the sexual crimes committed by straight people? Or the church .

people need to stop confusing large groups with the actions of a few, sexual crimes are rampant across many groups, many sexual orientations but only committed by a few horrible people,

no particular group, organisation or sexual orientation deserve to be blamed for these crimes. instead the individuals should be held to account.

fran17 wrote: »

These ceremonies involved a blessing from a priest etc?

humanist ceremonies do not involve a priest, my mother had one and not once did anything to do with priests or religion come into it.

Annasopra

fran17 wrote: »

I myself will also be voting no in the upcoming referendum.Firstly from a religious standpoint as marriage is,has and always will be first and foremost a religious ceremony.

No. Thats not true. There are approximately 5000-6000 civil marriage ceremonies in Ireland every year

fran17 wrote: »

As Pope Francis declared yesterday anything else is simply "an attempt to redefine the very institution of marriage".All attempts to dilute and redefine with whatever mutated version of marriage is as the pope said "disfiguring Gods plan for creation".I believe its very sad and regrettable that,if passed,society will be forcefully legislated to recognise this redefined abomination.

I find it genuinely very sad that you would define loving human relationships as an abomination

fran17 wrote: »

As for the link between homosexual men and paedophilia,well of course there is unfortunately paedophilia in all sections of society,both straight and gay.However,as much of the gay society is still by and large in the shadows then we can only take public gay figures into consideration.So when you take characters such as Terry Bean,David Norris,Elton John,Michael Barrymore,George Michael and the as yet unnamed director of lgbtq Dublin and look at there individual points of view on issues such as drugs,monogamy,pederasty and age of consent then definite question must arise.
There may be many good members of the gay community but as of yet due to either disinterest,shame or lack of strength they refuse to acknowledge what is a very sinister undercurrent in the lifestyle of the sexually active gay man.As the debate intensifies over the coming months these issues must be addressed.

And I find it shameful that you attempt to smear all gay men with your bigoted homophobic views. Shameful.

April28

Oh dear

Where does one begin? I had scripted my reply in my head, but had to re-consider my approach as I came to the frustrating realisation that there is only one way to execute this, and that's to dumb myself down to the OP's level (a task which won't be easy mind), but shall I give it a bash?....Lets.


Jupamapo, first off, I initially thought your entire view was wrote in jest, to the point you provided me with a good chuckle on a Sunday morning. Then I realised you were deadly serious, so I then became torn between the gripping articles in the Sunday rag, or reply to you. As you can see, the latter urge trumped the former.

Your views and concerns on marriage equality is almost as concerning as your taste in the sources that has evidently backed up your stance. The Daily Mail, while great to keep up with Kim Kardashian's latest relationship woes, is hardly credible journalism. I would have thought even the weakest intellectually challenged amongst us would have been aware of that, but it seems that the aforementioned rag still has an avid fan base for their meaty news bullet-ins!

Your point of equating marriage equality to that of paedophilia is not only completely ignorant (in the truest sense of the word) but also highly damaging and dangerous to the LGBT community, especially the youth of same, who rather than risk coming out and living the right they were afforded at birth by being their true authentic selves, but instead take their own lives in an desperate bid to end the pain and turmoil. A turmoil compounded by attitudes as bigotted such as yours. Have you taken time out to lift your nose out of Ireland's finest journalism to consider this? Or have we moved on to the next breaking news shocker headline.

As a spin-off response to the above, lets label it as a gentle FYI; child molestation and homosexuality are on completely different spectrums. The word paedophilia is a latin word derived as 'love of children', a condition where adults are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children i.e a child, male or female who hasn't yet developed biological characteristics that physically define their adult gender i.e in males, voice hasn't yet broken, facial hair hasn't yet developed, and genitalia has yet to reach a reproductive capability. In females, mammmry glands yet to develop, child-bearing hips yet to form and periods yet to begin. Apologies to you if you feel you're swooped right back to 5th class basic sex education, but hey, give yourself a break, as not all of us emotionally mature!

Homosexuality is the the very same orientation as heterosexuality i.e where one gender is attracted to a member of the same gender in the very same manner a man and a woman are attracted to each other, that is, various different components that define the universal common denominator amongst us all that we know as love; empathy, compassion, individuality, autonomy, humour, respect and integrity. On that point, you qualify for at least one criterium for the basis of a healthy relationship; as your sense of humour (skewed as it is) is bitchin'. Not sure if you've any hope with the remainder of the criteria though. But if at first you don't succeed and all that jazz

The age of consent: Both gay and straight people should have equal access to current legislation, in that in Ireland the age of consent for consensual sexual intercourse stands at 17, whereas the gay community's age of consent stands at 21. If we are to review this, then both should be reviewed exclusively. If a man and woman decide to sleep together at 17, then gay men should be afforded the same rights.

Marriage: Just who, or what position in the world do you hold that gives you the right to define marriage? Marriage as it constitutionally stands in the State is the legal union between a male and a female. That is a man-made legislation. From a religious view, catholicism has interpreted the bible according to how they desire the institution to be. It is a fiction based writing that again was written by man, regardless of the era it was written in.

As a gay woman, I should in theory be deeply wounded by your diatribe. However, it's always a blast been re-introduced to Ireland's finest calibre of prejudice bigots.

Have you ever considered a career with Alive magazine? You'd really find your niche. I'm quite sure they'd have vacancies. Considering the fact that only two people work there as folk ain't exactly banging down their door to gain employment with them. You should. They are true girl Fridays. Editors, printers, and they even stretch as far as rollin' up their sleeves and delivering the printed edition themselves. You just can't get the staff these days!



Yours, in true disordered form

flutered

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

You cannot punish the many for the sins of the few

when they are bankers it is not a problem

jubamapo

MrPudding wrote: »

Couple of points. First, sort out your quotes, it isn't hard.

Secondly, what does this have to do with the point I made? Do you accept that the point you made about the ECoHR saying there was no right to SSM? And if you do, do you further accept that continuing to use this line of argument is extremely dishonest?

Also, what exactly do you mean by imposed undemocratically? My understanding is France holds free and fair elections on a regular basis and the purpose of those elections is for the population of Franc to democratically elect their government. Once elected that government will enact legislation. Is it your view that any legislation passed by any democratically elected government is undemocratic unless it is passed by a referendum? If so, you have a strange, and completely unworkable idea of democracy.

Final point, can you please withdraw the blatant lie in your OP where you claimed you were originally going to vote yes?

MrP

I,m happy to say I never intended voting yes,I only did so to encourage a flurry of responses and have a debate.

Secondly I do not disagree with you upon your making me aware that the ECoHR leaves it to individual states to decide on matters such as gay marriage.
However it still remains that it is enshrined in the ECoHR that marriage is defined as between one woman and one man and that this is afforded special protective status.

In reaffirming this recently it recognises once more that this is the best scenario in which a child can be brought into the world and raised.Superior to a gay marriage scenario,co-habiting couples (in gay or straight scenarios),surrogacy (in gay or straight scenarios) or adoption (in gay or straight scenarios).
It thus recognises that gay marriage can never be equal to marriage between one man and one woman.
The ECoHR is secular so this is a valid policy impervious to arguments by secular opponents that it is derived from "supernatural" or "magic" beliefs.

It has declined invitations from the gay movement to reconsider on this point. I am recalling this from memory,I did not check wiki.

Thirdly you did not comment on me relating the absence of any provision in the UN charter of human rights to define gay marriage as a human right.

Fourthly I knew you were going to say the Government in France was elected democratically,but did it reveal at election time that upon election it intended to automatically make gay marriage legal ?
If it did not it is questionable that this government would have still been elected.It was pulling a fast one on voters.
No doubt the french judiciary was primed to be well populated with gays in and out of the closet to ensure gay marriage a smooth passage to legality, to the immense displeasure of millions of the french public .

Fifthly you have not answered my question - can you specify any individual state whereby gay marriage was legalised through holding a referendum ? I am not aware of any so I can understand you not wanting to dwell on that.

Lastly I have searched the help section to see how to quote so it appears in grey,cant find anything in FAQ I ticked the box "reply with quote" so apologies if its still not sorted