Muppets...

nesf · 26-05-2006 08:26PM #1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0526/mcdowellm.html

As per title. You'd swear this was the 1930s.

Edit: Apparently they were from the ancient order of hibernia or something.

crosstownk · 26-05-2006 08:28PM

Muppets indeed.

Thirdfox · 26-05-2006 08:29PM

"Threw a copy of the Constitution" lol!

No valid points can be made without rational discussion

constitutionus · 26-05-2006 08:30PM

yeah heard about this and though it was hysterical. apparently they hit him square in the chest with a copy of the consitution

, i mean who just happens to be carrying that about

Thirdfox · 26-05-2006 08:31PM

*shifts around uncomfortably* ...er yeah, who would be stupid enough to carry the Constitution around with them?

...it's the cheapest law related book available!

crosstownk · 26-05-2006 08:32PM

Constitution - a weapon of mass destruction................?

nesf · 26-05-2006 08:34PM

Correction: Ancient Order of Hibernians

Thirdfox · 26-05-2006 08:34PM

Ours is too small and light to be of any danger... it does have somewhat sharp edges though - and don't forget about the potential papercuts!

crosstownk · 26-05-2006 08:38PM

nesf wrote:

Correction: Ancient Order of Hibernians

Ah - I see. Kinda like the Stonecutters:D

rymus · 26-05-2006 09:29PM

crosstownk wrote:

Kinda like the Stonecutters:D

<karl>Ssssshut uuuuuuuuup...</karl>

Karl Hungus · 27-05-2006 02:09PM

Can anyone explain this to me:

They accused him of making laws that would hand their children over to 'perverts'.

Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

nesf · 27-05-2006 02:16PM

Karl Hungus wrote:

Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

Well, it's quite obvious really. Mr McDowell is paving the way for unmarried mothers to enter the daycare/creche industry.

Tar.Aldarion · 27-05-2006 02:44PM

Throwing the constitution at somebody, brilliant. Must get around to that.

easy_as_easy · 27-05-2006 02:50PM

*checks off list of things to do before Im 30....

FillSpectre · 29-05-2006 07:21AM

Karl Hungus wrote:

Can anyone explain this to me:

Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

Yeah. The new laws are about to give cohabitating same sex couples legal rights over the children they raise together. So if a lesbian couple are raising kids together and the birth mother died the remaining care giver (parent) would have leagal rights over the child.

It is really difficult to sort out as you may be trying to work out the rights of a genitic parent with those of somebody who has been raising them.

I'm sure they did a story line on ER about this.

I would think very few irish people really want gay couples raising children. I am very libreal but still think gay adoptions are questionable.

humanji · 29-05-2006 08:24AM

FillSpectre wrote:

Yeah. The new laws are about to give cohabitating same sex couples legal rights over the children they raise together. So if a lesbian couple are raising kids together and the birth mother died the remaining care giver (parent) would have leagal rights over the child.

It is really difficult to sort out as you may be trying to work out the rights of a genitic parent with those of somebody who has been raising them.

I'm sure they did a story line on ER about this.

I would think very few irish people really want gay couples raising children. I am very libreal but still think gay adoptions are questionable.

Why? Are homosexuals less capable of loving a child?

jor el · 29-05-2006 09:41AM

Karl Hungus wrote:

Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

Ah the rationale of an extremist. You see by labeling gays and lesbians as perverts and sneaking the word 'children' into the same sentance you plant the notion that all homosexuals are in fact pedophiles. So if the new laws allowing same sex marrige are enacted then obviously we all have to hand our children over to the pedos and there isn't a damn thing we can do about.

The emoticon :rolleyes: springs to mind. But, you throw enough sh*t and eventually some of it sticks. There are many people in Ireland who subscribe to this train of thought.

What the long term psychological damage (if any at all) there would be to a child being raised by two daddys or two mammys is I have no idea. I don't see how it would automatically be a bad thing, but until there are many children being raised in such circumstances then we probably won't know for sure.

FillSpectre · 29-05-2006 09:41AM

jomanji wrote:

Why? Are homosexuals less capable of loving a child?

I simply think adoption should be very strict and have a very high requirement considering there are very few children to adopt.

Love has nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't think a child should be given to a couple where one of the people is bipolar either but I am not saying take the children away from such people. Adoption is about selection for the best future not dictating how a person can live and who gets to have children.

humanji · 29-05-2006 10:16AM

FillSpectre wrote:

I simply think adoption should be very strict and have a very high requirement considering there are very few children to adopt.

Love has nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't think a child should be given to a couple where one of the people is bipolar either but I am not saying take the children away from such people. Adoption is about selection for the best future not dictating how a person can live and who gets to have children.

But that's nothing to do with them being gay. If they're unfit parents then they shouldn't have kids, simple as that. But they can't be labelled unfit parents just because they are gay.

FillSpectre · 29-05-2006 10:36AM

jomanji wrote:

But that's nothing to do with them being gay. If they're unfit parents then they shouldn't have kids, simple as that. But they can't be labelled unfit parents just because they are gay.

I was talking about adoption. Personally I think gay adoption is questionable for the sake of the child, this is the only reason I have given thus far. Unfortunately many people who are unfit as parents have children. THe state can't dictate everything so people are left with their children.Unfit is a point of view and don't belive that a gay couple is the best avilable option for adoption as a rule. If you can't have kids due to your sexual preference I see that as enough reason not to allow adoption or IVF. As I accept it is natural to be gay I also accept it is as such natural they don't have children. If they do have children then they should have all the rights and so should their partners. Technically that is adoption but I mean state agency adoption when speaking earlier.

delly · 29-05-2006 10:44AM

As a straight married man who has a distain for all things religious, I can’t see any reason for restricting gay couples to adopt. I just have a simplistic view that if a child goes to a loving household, then the couple in that household have an obligation to protect and bring up that child, regardless of what sexual preferences the occupants of that house have.

If a person in a gay couple suffers from a psychological illness like being bipolar, then it would be justified to refuse adoption in the best interests of the child, but likewise if it was a straight couple.

I dunno, it really confuses me sometimes to understand why some people still have a backward view in this day and age.

chillywilly · 29-05-2006 10:44AM

rymus wrote:

<karl>Ssssshut uuuuuuuuup...</karl>

cant tell you homer its secret:D

humanji · 29-05-2006 10:53AM

FillSpectre wrote:

I was talking about adoption. Personally I think gay adoption is questionable for the sake of the child, this is the only reason I have given thus far. Unfortunately many people who are unfit as parents have children. THe state can't dictate everything so people are left with their children.Unfit is a point of view and don't belive that a gay couple is the best avilable option for adoption as a rule. If you can't have kids due to your sexual preference I see that as enough reason not to allow adoption or IVF. As I accept it is natural to be gay I also accept it is as such natural they don't have children. If they do have children then they should have all the rights and so should their partners. Technically that is adoption but I mean state agency adoption when speaking earlier.

I still don't see how it makes them unfit to adopt. If a child is in need of a home and a couple have the means to support it and will nurture and love the child, then that's all that matters to make them fit parents, isn't it?

And am I the ony one to never have heard of this Hibernian group? It's like our own little Priory Of Sion! lol

grimloch · 29-05-2006 10:59AM

jomanji wrote:

I still don't see how it makes them unfit to adopt. If a child is in need of a home and a couple have the means to support it and will nurture and love the child, then that's all that matters to make them fit parents, isn't it?

I'd imagine that it has much much more to do with the child. Say two homosexuals adopt a boy. I'd be fairly confident that that child will be subjected to torrents of abuse once he hits school. Or possibly worse than just the verbal abuse.

stevenmu · 29-05-2006 11:00AM

Karl Hungus wrote:

Can anyone explain this to me:

Hand their children over to perverts? Erm, what?

Afaik it's to do with homosexuals teaching in schools or working in child care. I'm just guessing at their point of view here, it's not my own, but they see homosexuality as being a 'perversion' of normal sexual behaviour. Normal sexual behaviour presumably being that which is approved by the church. Paeodphilia is also a perversion of normal sexual behaviour and if someone indulges in one perversion, then they're more likely to indulge in another.

(remember, that's not my view, just what I think theirs is)

FillSpectre · 29-05-2006 11:01AM

delly wrote:

I dunno, it really confuses me sometimes to understand why some people still have a backward view in this day and age.

I am not religious and have a gay family memeber. I have a differrent view that does not make it backwards.

I don't think single people should be allowed adopt but it doesn't mean I think single parents are unfit. Single paretns have always been around this is natural in society. Children to adopt are like hens teeth I beleive the closest to nature should be given to these children. I accept being gay is part of nature but for them to have children is not. I am not saying they can't have kids just not through state adoptions. It is really off topic now

Some idiots choose to believe gay people are perverts I don't agree and I am hoping that recognistion of gay couples happens sooner than later. All issues of parental rights should be given. Gay people should have the same rights to their children they raise. I think the state adoption agency should not allow such couples adopt from them.

Thirdfox · 29-05-2006 11:13AM

stevenmu wrote:

Normal sexual behaviour presumably being that which is approved by the church.

Perversion can be more than a religion's view. It can also be scientific too. I wouldn't call homosexuality a perversion but I would be against same-sex adoption too. I am agnostic and base my beliefs on the pragmaticism of science. Making a choice (or if you were born with such an inclination) closes off options in life for you in my opinion.

There's a thread about homosexuality in the humanities forum. Most people there are pro-homosexual rights. Although as for myself in my experience I found that in our college group (supposedly most liberal outlook) people were 50/50 for same-sex marriages.

FillSpectre · 29-05-2006 11:13AM

jomanji wrote:

I still don't see how it makes them unfit to adopt. If a child is in need of a home and a couple have the means to support it and will nurture and love the child, then that's all that matters to make them fit parents, isn't it?

No not in my view. I never said these people were unfit. I can get understand you disagree or have another view, I have stated mine. THere is no point asking the same question in a different way. Either tell me how your view differs to mine or where you feel my view is wrong but asking questions is neither stating how you feel or expanding the point you have.

jomanji wrote:

And am I the ony one to never have heard of this Hibernian group? It's like our own little Priory Of Sion! lol

Well as you can see they are quite old. Yes I have heard of them and there was a big fuse last year becasue they handed out some awards. The are basically the masons except poorer and catholic.

delly · 29-05-2006 11:23AM

grimloch wrote:

I'd imagine that it has much much more to do with the child. Say two homosexuals adopt a boy. I'd be fairly confident that that child will be subjected to torrents of abuse once he hits school. Or possibly worse than just the verbal abuse.

Reminds me of people who say that I should get my children christened just to stop them being bullied in school. Our society today is made up of so many different cultures, that we have to sort the people who are doing the abusing rather than restricting the people who want equal rights.

FillSpectre wrote:

I am not religious and have a gay family member. I have a different view that does not make it backwards.

I don't think single people should be allowed adopt but it doesn't mean I think single parents are unfit. Single parents have always been around this is natural in society. Children to adopt are like hens teeth I believe the closest to nature should be given to these children. I accept being gay is part of nature but for them to have children is not. I am not saying they can't have kids just not through state adoptions. It is really off topic now

Some idiots choose to believe gay people are perverts I don't agree and I am hoping that recognition of gay couples happens sooner than later. All issues of parental rights should be given. Gay people should have the same rights to their children they raise. I think the state adoption agency should not allow such couples adopt from them.

I can honestly say that I have zero exposure to anybody who is gay, and I understand that you have a tolerant view, but years from now people will be laughing at views that gay people shouldn’t adopt because its not part of nature. Some people believe that IVF is against nature, but I would see it as an acceptable means of having a baby.

grimloch · 29-05-2006 11:26AM

delly wrote:

Reminds me of people who say that I should get my children christened just to stop them being bullied in school. Our society today is made up of so many different cultures, that we have to sort the people who are doing the abusing rather than restricting the people who want equal rights.

The abusers should be sorted out yes, but for the time being it's most certainly a barrier to same sex adoption.

Orion · 29-05-2006 11:34AM

jomanji wrote:

And am I the ony one to never have heard of this Hibernian group? It's like our own little Priory Of Sion! lol

Probably

. These are the same muppets who run the St. Patricks Day parade in New York ... the ones who throw hissy-fits when the Gay community want to be a part of the parade.

Muppets...

Comments