The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Gumbi · 20-08-2012 10:09PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

doctoremma wrote: »

Also, did anyone see the women's weightlifting during the Olympics? Some of those chicks could carry most men from a burning building, probably two, one over each shoulder.

Missed it. I was too busy marvelling at the strength of those women who were swimming 10km, and the ones flinging the ball on a chain the length of a rugby pitch. Weak girlies the lot of em.

Did you read the segment of the Times, which had a speech by the Pope in the 50s (I think), something to the effect that women in sports was utterly unbecoming and should be banned?

doctoremma · 20-08-2012 10:12PM

Gumbi wrote: »

Did you read the segment of the Times, which had a speech by the Pope in the 50s (I think), something to the effect that women in sports was utterly unbecoming and should be banned?

Is Snappy Smurf a reincarnation then?

MrPudding · 21-08-2012 09:04AM

Actor wrote: »

Adoption is a privilege, not a right. You are forgetting that most natural parents, when asked, will choose not to allow their offspring to be "adopted" by a homosexual pair. It goes against all natural instincts.

Most natural parents in general, in which case I will need evidence, or most natural parents in your horrible, small minded and biggoted world, in which case I am not surprised and require no evidence?

MrP

MadsL · 21-08-2012 09:10AM

Actor, you posted earlier your dismay at a gay man claiming the 'right' to have a child.

If you believe they have no such right and the State should police that; would you therefore support government child policies in say, China? If not, why not?

Actor · 21-08-2012 05:44PM

MadsL wrote: »

If you believe they have no such right and the State should police that; would you therefore support government child policies in say, China? If not, why not?

Government child policies in China???

What are you on about?

Incidentally, what about Irish Government abortion policies - where the local CWO will stump up a "discretionary allowance" for travel to England? Or where abortifacients are available on the medical card?

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 05:58PM

Actor wrote: »

Government child policies in China??? What are you on about?

Incidentally, what about Irish Government abortion policies - where the local CWO will stump up a "discretionary allowance" for travel to England? Or where abortifacients are available on the medical card?

Seriously Actor - do you ever check your facts before spouting off?

Thu 22/12/2011

Medical card patients in the north-east of the country are to lose their entitlement to a wide range of free GP family planning services, including the morning-after pill, in the new year.

GPs are now expressing concern about how less well-off patients will access family planning services when this cutback measure is implemented.

The north-east had been the only health service region in the country which had been funding the provision of free family planning services for medical card patients through providing special payments to GPs to provide these services.

Under GP medical card contracts there is normally no provision for doctors to provide most family planning services free of charge.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=20190

Now do you have any actual proof the CWOs provide funds for women to travel for abortions (and by proof I mean a verifiable source not anecdotal 'friend of a friend told me' ) or did you make that up too?

China - one child policy. A quick google would have educated you.

What does this have to do with whether Gay people can marry or not?

Actor · 21-08-2012 06:01PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What does this have to do with whether Gay people can marry or not?

I'm not the one who brought up the erroneous remark about one-child policies in China!

Check through the thread and get your facts straight.

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 06:11PM

Actor wrote: »

I'm not the one who brought up the erroneous remark about one-child policies in China!

Check through the thread and get your facts straight.

Yes, I know. I do my research - something you apparently don't. Ironic for someone telling someone else to 'get their facts straight' - Actor, may I ask you to please practise what you preach?

In that spirit would you care to address the issue of your erroneous remark re: availability of abortifacients on the medical health card or supply proof of your claim that CWOs fund women to travel for abortion?

BTW Abortifacients can be picked up in the garden too - for free - in Ireland Tansy was the preferred abortifacient but apparently nutmeg, aniseed and wormwood (plus a host of others) were also used. Should we ban herbs?

Or perhaps you would clarify what any of this has to do with Gay Marriage?

Actor · 21-08-2012 06:52PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

BTW Abortifacients can be picked up in the garden too - for free - in Ireland Tansy was the preferred abortifacient but apparently nutmeg, aniseed and wormwood (plus a host of others) were also used. Should we ban herbs?

Well done. You should have studied medicine.

Gumbi · 21-08-2012 06:56PM

Actor wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

BTW Abortifacients can be picked up in the garden too - for free - in Ireland Tansy was the preferred abortifacient but apparently nutmeg, aniseed and wormwood (plus a host of others) were also used. Should we ban herbs?

Well done. You should have studied medicine.

Why don't directly address a point for once? Any and all rebuttals made towards you have been ignored.

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 06:56PM

Actor wrote: »

Well done. You should have studied medicine.

Still waiting for you to withdraw your, to be blunt about it, lie about abortifacients being provided on the medical health card and provide evidence for your statement re: CWOs funding women to travel for abortion.

How do you know I haven't.

Actor · 21-08-2012 07:03PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Still waiting for you to withdraw your, to be blunt about it, lie about abortifacients being provided on the medical health card and provide evidence for your statement re: CWOs funding women to travel for abortion.

How do you know I haven't.

Every students union across the country pays for travel and so-called "medical procedures" in England.

Same goes for CWOs. Hell, my neighbour even told me that she got a free Ryanair trip to London on the taxpayers' expense. If they give money out for communions, you can rest assured they give it out for abortions. Hearsay I hear you say, but that's the truth.

Do you have an issue with abortion? I'd like to know so I know what I'm dealing with here. I find it funny that most pro-abortionists are also pro-gay "marriage" - it's as if they're good judgement is clouded by liberal "ethicists" that infest the world's major universities.

Actor · 21-08-2012 07:05PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Still waiting for you to withdraw your, to be blunt about it, lie about abortifacients being provided on the medical health card and provide evidence for your statement re: CWOs funding women to travel for abortion.

How do you know I haven't.

btw, abortifacients are available to medical card holders. My business partner is a pharmacist and he should know.

wonderfulname · 21-08-2012 07:06PM

Actor wrote: »

You should read the Independent's weekend supplement from two weekends ago. There was some homosexual chap complaining about his "right" to have a child being denied.

Would you lookie here it's online; http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/im-31-gay-and-im-ready-to-be-a-father-3203095.html

You appear to have misquoted there, imagine that, couldn't find the word "right" anywhere in the piece. It deals with one gay mans personal experience of considering fatherhood, the only relevant area of consideration being that should he father one his partner will not be recognised as guardian regardless of input into parenting, and along a similar vein Irish law isn't exactly suited to surrogacy, an issue which affects straight couples as well by the way.

The interesting thing to note there, which I do so enjoy noting in this "debate", is that he can have as many children as he wants, because nothing prevents anyone in a same sex relationship having kids or raising them, the family unit in such circumstances just isn't afforded the same legal security as others.

Actor · 21-08-2012 07:12PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

Would you lookie here it's online; http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/im-31-gay-and-im-ready-to-be-a-father-3203095.html

You appear to have misquoted there, imagine that, couldn't find the word "right" anywhere in the piece. It deals with one gay mans personal experience of considering fatherhood, the only relevant area of consideration being that should he father one his partner will not be recognised as guardian regardless of input into parenting, and along a similar vein Irish law isn't exactly suited to surrogacy, an issue which affects straight couples as well by the way.

The interesting thing to note there, which I do so enjoy noting in this "debate", is that he can have as many children as he wants, because nothing prevents anyone in a same sex relationship having kids or raising them, the family unit in such circumstances just isn't afforded the same legal security as others.

Sex outside of marriage with the sole intention of conceiving so as to facilitate some perversion is not only morally wrong; but a blatant abuse of Gods gifts.

Many abuse God's gifts (such as taking their own lives, taking drugs and abusing children). This abuse of life is not only dangerous and irresponsible behaviour, but dispicable too.

Gumbi · 21-08-2012 07:20PM

Actor wrote: »

wonderfulname wrote: »

Would you lookie here it's online; http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/im-31-gay-and-im-ready-to-be-a-father-3203095.html

You appear to have misquoted there, imagine that, couldn't find the word "right" anywhere in the piece. It deals with one gay mans personal experience of considering fatherhood, the only relevant area of consideration being that should he father one his partner will not be recognised as guardian regardless of input into parenting, and along a similar vein Irish law isn't exactly suited to surrogacy, an issue which affects straight couples as well by the way.

The interesting thing to note there, which I do so enjoy noting in this "debate", is that he can have as many children as he wants, because nothing prevents anyone in a same sex relationship having kids or raising them, the family unit in such circumstances just isn't afforded the same legal security as others.

Sex outside of marriage with the sole intention of conceiving so as to facilitate some perversion is not only morally wrong; but a blatant abuse of Gods gifts.

Many abuse God's gifts (such as taking their own lives, taking drugs and abusing children). This abuse of life is not only dangerous and irresponsible behaviour, but dispicable too.

Such hateful language. Perversion? Really?

doctoremma · 21-08-2012 07:21PM

Actor wrote: »

Sex outside of marriage with the sole intention of conceiving so as to facilitate some perversion is not only morally wrong; but a blatant abuse of Gods gifts.

Many abuse God's gifts (such as taking their own lives, taking drugs and abusing children). This abuse of life is not only dangerous and irresponsible behaviour, but dispicable too.

So you aren't going to retract your previous incorrect assertion then? :rolleyes:

NuMarvel · 21-08-2012 07:25PM

Actor wrote: »

Sex outside of marriage with the sole intention of conceiving so as to facilitate some perversion is not only morally wrong; but a blatant abuse of Gods gifts.

Many abuse God's gifts (such as taking their own lives, taking drugs and abusing children). This abuse of life is not only dangerous and irresponsible behaviour, but dispicable too.

Says who? You? You can't even quote the context of the article correctly. Why should anyone take you as an authority of morality, God's gifts, or what constitutes dangerous or irresponsible behaviour?

wonderfulname · 21-08-2012 07:35PM

Actor wrote: »

Sex outside of marriage with the sole intention of conceiving so as to facilitate some perversion is not only morally wrong; but a blatant abuse of Gods gifts.

Facilitate some perversion? Human instinct you mean? All I can say is tough crap it happens, over a third of children in Ireland are born out of wedlock, gay people aren't the only ones who happily ignore your beliefs, do you think it makes sense that your beliefs be arbitrarily enforced upon the laws that protect these people to their detriment, and indeed their childrens, people who have made no concious decision yet it seems you would see them negatively affected anyway.

Actor wrote: »

Many abuse God's gifts (such as taking their own lives, taking drugs and abusing children). This abuse of life is not only dangerous and irresponsible behaviour, but dispicable too.

Relevance? If I wasn't used to you by now I'd assume you to be a very poor troll, that pointless point of yours gave me a good giggle.

Just curious, do you posess that very christian of traits which is the ability to say "sorry, my bad" or similar? Just if you're going to go the whole hog on the sin related beliefs it would be nice to balance it out with the virtuous ones.

Sonics2k · 21-08-2012 07:56PM

Actor wrote: »

Sex outside of marriage with the sole intention of conceiving so as to facilitate some perversion is not only morally wrong; but a blatant abuse of Gods gifts.

Many abuse God's gifts (such as taking their own lives, taking drugs and abusing children). This abuse of life is not only dangerous and irresponsible behaviour, but dispicable too.

Pretty sure lying is a big no no too, and yet you've managed to do it quite a few times.

Actor · 21-08-2012 08:25PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Pretty sure lying is a big no no too, and yet you've managed to do it quite a few times.

Under GP medical card contracts there is normally no provision for doctors to provide most family planning services free of charge.

Now tell me. All of you. Where's the lie?

Are you calling my business partner (a qualified pharmacist) a lier too?

And I'll wait for ye to retract the statement.

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 08:31PM

Actor wrote: »

Every students union across the country pays for travel and so-called "medical procedures" in England.

Same goes for CWOs. Hell, my neighbour even told me that she got a free Ryanair trip to London on the taxpayers' expense. If they give money out for communions, you can rest assured they give it out for abortions. Hearsay I hear you say, but that's the truth.

Do you have an issue with abortion? I'd like to know so I know what I'm dealing with here. I find it funny that most pro-abortionists are also pro-gay "marriage" - it's as if they're good judgement is clouded by liberal "ethicists" that infest the world's major universities.

What your neighbour allegedly told you is not proof. That is anecdotal. Do you have proof?

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 08:41PM

Actor wrote: »

Under GP medical card contracts there is normally no provision for doctors to provide most family planning services free of charge.

Now tell me. All of you. Where's the lie?

Are you calling my business partner (a qualified pharmacist) a lier too?

And I'll wait for ye to retract the statement.

Hmmm...verifiable website on Irish health matters states - lets look again shall we

Medical card patients in the north-east of the country are to lose their entitlement to a wide range of free GP family planning services, including the morning-after pill, in the new year.

GPs are now expressing concern about how less well-off patients will access family planning services when this cutback measure is implemented.

The north-east had been the only health service region in the country which had been funding the provision of free family planning services for medical card patients through providing special payments to GPs to provide these services.

Under GP medical card contracts there is normally no provision for doctors to provide most family planning services free of charge.

Are you and your business partner in the North-East by any chance as that is the only region where there was provision of free family planning services and that was cut around 9 months ago. I hope your pharmacist partner isn't also doing the accounts as he seems to failed to notice that he was no longer authorised to supply 'free' family planning of any kind.

Sonics2k · 21-08-2012 09:07PM

Actor wrote: »

Under GP medical card contracts there is normally no provision for doctors to provide most family planning services free of charge.

Now tell me. All of you. Where's the lie?

Are you calling my business partner (a qualified pharmacist) a lier too?

And I'll wait for ye to retract the statement.

Bannasidhe did show proof, so will you retract your statement?

Your pharmacist friend is either mistaken, was not telling the full truth, or you were not. Either way.

p.s. This whole current discussion has literally got sod all to do with the topic.

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 09:16PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Bannasidhe, so will you retract yours?

Your pharmacist friend is either mistaken, was not telling the full truth, or you were not. Either way.

p.s. This whole current discussion has literally got sod all to do with the topic.

Firstly -the information states it was only available in the North West region and was cut 8 months ago.
Secondly - 'Normally' implies if such prescriptions are/were written they are in 'abnormal' circumstances. This is a world away from Actor's claim which implied they are freely and widely available. I believe that is a lie by omission.

Perhaps the information I have is incorrect - in which case I shall of course retract. But so far Actor has been unable to supply any 'proof' of his claims beyond his business partner told him.

His 'proof' of his claim that CWOs fund women to travel is a 'neighbour told him' and it stands to reason as they give grants for communion dresses.

I have asked Actor to provide evidence - until such time as he does so. No, I will not retract.

I have also repeatedly asked Actor what this has to do with Gay Marriage. He has failed to answer even that simple question.

MadsL · 21-08-2012 11:28PM

Actor wrote: »

I'm not the one who brought up the erroneous remark about one-child policies in China!

Erroneous remark? Sorry what?

Let me spell it out for you.

If your position is that gay men have no right to a child, then someone (in your world view) has to prevent that from happening - ie: The State. Once the State starts interfering in procreation and who can/can't have children, you end up with China.

It's a simple extension of your belief that gay men have no rights to a child is it not. If I am wrong, do explain, I'm all ears.

wonderfulname · 22-08-2012 10:53AM

Actor wrote: »

And I'll wait for ye to retract the statement.

Ironic statement is ironic.

PDN · 23-08-2012 10:55AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have also repeatedly asked Actor what this has to do with Gay Marriage. He has failed to answer even that simple question.

Abortion has little or nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

I would point out that the thread is not actually about Gay Marriage per se, but rather about Christianity and Homosexuality.

I had hoped that a good reasonable discussion (one that needs to take place) could have occurred here.

However, after people started accusing anyone who disagreed with them of being bigots and homophobes, any reasonable Christian posters have left the thread, and that is unfortunate.

As it stands the only 'Christians' who are going to participate in this thread are likely to be those who are trolling or trying to rile others. Which at least proves the Bible to be true when it says that you reap what you sow.

The one useful purpose that this thread serves at present is to corral all that kind of crap in one place and keep the rest of the Forum free of it.

Meanwhile I would remind posters that the rules of the Forum Charter still apply here.

doctoremma · 23-08-2012 11:11AM

PDN wrote: »

However, after people started accusing anyone who disagreed with them of being bigots and homophobes, any reasonable Christian posters have left the thread, and that is unfortunate.

I don't think that's a very fair comment. Particular posters have only attracted such labels when they have consistently failed to offer any rational defence of their position. If that doesn't make one a bigot, what does?

23-08-2012 11:45AM

PDN wrote: »

However, after people started accusing anyone who disagreed with them of being bigots and homophobes, any reasonable Christian posters have left the thread, and that is unfortunate.

But no one was called a bigot just just disagreeing.
People were only accused of being bigots by making claims that one group of people where less than another group, then both failing and refusing to back up that claim with anything other than personal opinion (which is often freely admitted to being narrow minded and willful ignorant).

What are we to call this other than bigotry?

If it wasn't bigotry the only way to show this is for those people to actually support what they claim.

Do you think that any of the anti gay claims made here have been in anyway rationally or reasonably defended?

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments