Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

1…3637394142…324

Comments

  • #1142
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    kiki wrote: »
    As far as I am concerned if children are involved then I am much slower to change our laws or vary too quickly from what my intuition tells me. Yes I acknowledge intuition can get it wrong - very wrong at times - but its a good starting point. I'm still deciding this issue but my instincts tells me to be conservative until proven otherwise.

    Its not really black and white issue as to what family structure is best for bringing up children. There are plenty of terrible hetrosexual parents, and plenty of very good parents who are same sex and would bring up children much better. As there are plenty of single parent families who also do much better. So it more to with the specifics of the parents in question. I think a child needs love and support - be it from one or two (same or different sex) parents - I think that is the critical thing. I'm of the view that all other things being equal (which they are not in real life or in specific examples) two parents are better than one. I'm not saying here that a one parent family cant do a very good job, I'm saying I'm of the view that two parents together have a better chance to provide love, support and the physical needs of children. And in a similar vein I'd say similar about opposite sex couples over same sex couples - my view is that the two sexes give that something extra to a child. Therein lies my intuition and it could be wrong. Id want to see many impartial research projects carried out over a longish time period in our society here to make me change my mind - and I will if convinced. Even if not convinced (or cant be proven) - perhaps the specifics of parent(s) is so different as to make no real difference in outcome to children ?

    Irregardless of my intuition we have some strange issues to solve as a society - examples like what happens to a child who loses their mother or father in a same sex couple and where the remaining partner was married but not biological parent ? Perhaps its in best interest of child to remain with spouse ?

    The thread was about gay marriage - end of world - it most certainly is not the case - but as a society we need to debate it well and be clear what we are trying to achieve.


    Hi kiki,

    I see where you're coming from but I would say that intuition is a bad place to start. If you are unaware of the specifics of an issue I think it is a far better starting point to withhold forming an opinion until you have considered the evidence. That being said, in response to the highlighted section, here is a post of mine which should help you out with the research in this area. The overwhelming consensus of this research is that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex parenting and that there is no ideal or optimum parental configuration.


  • #1143
    kiki
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 108 ✭✭kiki


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Hi kiki,

    I see where you're coming from but I would say that intuition is a bad place to start. If you are unaware of the specifics of an issue I think it is a far better starting point to withhold forming an opinion until you have considered the evidence. That being said, in response to the highlighted section, here is a post of mine which should help you out with the research in this area. The overwhelming consensus of this research is that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex parenting and that there is no ideal or optimum parental configuration.

    I disagree - I find intuition is correct (in the most part) for most questions in everyday social situations - that said the mind can easily make incorrect assumptions without having fully analyzed - I take your point regarding not forming an opinion - for me its not possible to really do as I have (and I suggest we all have) an opinion to start with. I am open though to changing my mind though...

    I've taken a hour or so to follow the links you have provided (you may need to update them as at least three of them were broken). What I was interested in was primary research and I read most of papers you linked to. I didn't read secondary research papers as I want to see how the research was conducted. You have provided evidence to in several papers which would support the argument that children of lesbians couples with planned families using (DI) fare as good as if not better than those from Hetrosexual couples - most studies cited were in Netherlands and USA. I cant say same about gay father couples, or yet in lesbian couples where the family construction changed from hetrosexual as papers didn't research this - more than likely due to lack of research in this area. I will take some more time out over next few weeks to delve deeper. I still have open mind on this issue and want to research more as within some of the papers mentioned some other studies mentioned did not concur. While I don't doubt your sincerity I want to see if others have counter argument or research to support other claims.

    The links you have provided make for interesting reading.

    Kiki


  • #1144
    Jellicoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    fitz0 wrote: »
    What is a real Christian? I've always wondered at this odd 'No True Scotsman' that is usually put forward by atheists. Where is the mythical true Scotsman?

    Seems to me that Christianity is what Christians make it.

    Well unlike the 'true scotsmen' fallacy, Christians were left pretty clear instructions :

    "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

    Just because some 'Christians' make it up as they go along, does not make them what they are supposed to be

    "I like your Christ. I do not like some of your Christians. Some of your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Ghandi

    "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words." - St. Francis of Assisi


  • #1145
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,090 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Jellicoe wrote: »
    Christians were left pretty clear instructions
    The bolded part is where the problem is. It's hard enough to write a paragraph in English that isn't open to interpretation in some way. When you're talking about an ancient document who's writing is spread out over several centuries, by dozens of authors, in thousands of contexts, in a handful of languages and subsequently interpreted through a handful of others.... well, you end up in the current situation

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1146
    Jellicoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    28064212 wrote: »
    The bolded part is where the problem is. It's hard enough to write a paragraph in English that isn't open to interpretation in some way. When you're talking about an ancient document who's writing is spread out over several centuries, by dozens of authors, in thousands of contexts, in a handful of languages and subsequently interpreted through a handful of others.... well, you end up in the current situation

    Nah, I think what Jesus said was pretty clear cut, however lots of it has been twisted and used for ulterior purposes.


  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Jellicoe wrote: »
    Nah, I think what Jesus said was pretty clear cut, however lots of it has been twisted and used for ulterior purposes.

    Not meaning to go off-topic here but...


    First off, 28064212 is right, any work is open to interpretation, especially something as patchwork as the New Testament. If Jesus really was clear cut then we wouldn't have over 33,000 different denominations of Christianity constantly sharding in different directions.

    Secondly, you only get a picture of Jesus like the one you quoted above in Matthew 7:5 by taking a narrow and biased view of Jesus. This whole "Jesus was a good guy who preached peace and love and eventually got screwed over" ignores large chunks of the new testament. Explain these for example:

    "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
    Matthew 10:34-37
    "In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables."
    John 2:14-15

    "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
    Luke 22:36

    He said to another man, “Follow me.” But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
    Luke 9:60

    Jesus issues some messages of peace it's true but to claim that he was a man of peace or a peaceful man is to cherrypick the new testament. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet in the style of Daniel, a manipulative cult leader with a nasty streak.

    Having said that, the only texts we have to go on are letters written by numerous authors proclaiming to be Paul (although many of them are genuinely written by Paul), a man who never met Jesus and four gospel stories all written decades after the death of Jesus. The idea that we can honestly say we know what the character of Jesus is like is, well, ludicrous.


  • #1148
    e_e
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOsRiH0-E6A


    This should be of interest to some *ahem* here.


  • #1149
    Jellicoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Not meaning to go off-topic here but...


    First off, 28064212 is right, any work is open to interpretation, especially something as patchwork as the New Testament. If Jesus really was clear cut then we wouldn't have over 33,000 different denominations of Christianity constantly sharding in different directions.

    Secondly, you only get a picture of Jesus like the one you quoted above in Matthew 7:5 by taking a narrow and biased view of Jesus. This whole "Jesus was a good guy who preached peace and love and eventually got screwed over" ignores large chunks of the new testament. Explain these for example:

    "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
    Matthew 10:34-37
    "In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables."
    John 2:14-15

    "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
    Luke 22:36

    He said to another man, “Follow me.” But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
    Luke 9:60

    All I see in those passages is Jesus telling people to be actual Christians instead of pretend Christian hypocrits. If they actually practiced what they preached they might get more respect.


  • #1150
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Jellicoe wrote: »
    All I see in those passages is Jesus telling people to be actual Christians instead of pretend Christian hypocrits.
    See, that's just your interpretation of those passages. See what I did there...?

    Seriously, if his word is so easy then why are there so many christian denominations? Why are there groups of christians that think it is ok to be gay and other that think it isn't?

    MrP


  • #1151
    Jellicoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    MrPudding wrote: »
    See, that's just your interpretation of those passages. See what I did there...?

    Seriously, if his word is so easy then why are there so many christian denominations? Why are there groups of christians that think it is ok to be gay and other that think it isn't?

    MrP

    Simple, anything can be manipulated to fit any agenda.
    Truth becomes lies and lies become the truth.


  • Advertisement
  • #1152
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Jellicoe wrote: »
    Simple, anything can be manipulated to fit any agenda.
    Truth becomes lies and lies become the truth.

    So why is your version the truth ?


  • #1153
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Jellicoe wrote: »
    Simple, anything can be manipulated to fit any agenda.
    Truth becomes lies and lies become the truth.

    Anything? So if Jesus came out and said "Gay sex is perfectly fine" you could twist that to mean otherwise?


  • #1154
    Jellicoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Anything? So if Jesus came out and said "Gay sex is perfectly fine" you could twist that to mean otherwise?

    Yes of course, e.g. ask any Irish politician how it works, they'll soon show you how


  • #1155
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Jellicoe wrote: »
    Yes of course, e.g. ask any Irish politician how it works, they'll soon show you how

    Actually what politicians engage in is woolly ambiguous answers that can mean different things. They would never state such a clear answer in the first place. Religious people however do use words like context and metaphor to do what you suggest they do but to be fair they all HAVE to do it with some parts of the bible as there are just too many contradictions to take it all at face value or to claim to be the only one who doesn't cherry pick. Even the fundamentalists have to cherry pick, they're only called fundamentalists because they choose the nastier passages.


  • #1156
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    marienbad wrote: »
    So why is your version the truth ?

    This is essentially my point.


  • #1157
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The folks from Australia, they say no.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/australia-same-sex-marriage-600348-Sep2012/
    TheJournal wrote:
    AUSTRALIA’S PARLIAMENT has voted overwhelmingly to reject gay marriage, after days of heated debate that saw one senator resign from a key role after linking same-sex unions to bestiality.

    The House of Representatives voted down the bill to legalise marriage between same sex couples by 98 votes to 42, with Labor prime minister Julia Gillard and opposition conservative leader Tony Abbott both voting against it.
    Gillard had allowed Labor MPs a conscience vote on the issue – meaning they were free to vote how they wanted rather than along party lines – while the opposition had opposed it.

    Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese, who voted for the reform, said despite the bill’s failure the figures were encouraging. “Just a few years ago there wouldn’t have been the support of anything like 42 votes on the floor of the national parliament for a marriage equality bill,” he told reporters. “All the figures show that there is majority community support on this issue… and I think at some future time, parliament will catch up with the community opinion.”

    The vote ends several days of debate on the bill, during which one senator sparked outrage by linking same-sex marriage to sex with animals. The furore surrounding the comments forced him to resign from his parliamentary role.
    Speaking on the bill last night, outspoken Liberal senator Cory Bernardi said he questioned what the next step would be if the government redefined marriage so that two people could wed regardless of their gender.

    “The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society,” he told the Senate. “There are even some creepy people out there… (who) say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?”

    Elements within the Liberal Party slammed the comments, including high-profile former leader Malcolm Turnbull who described them as “hysterical, alarmist, offensive”. Liberal leader Abbott said Bernardi had offered today to resign his position as his parliamentary secretary as a result, and he had accepted this.

    New Zealand’s parliament approved legislation allowing same-sex marriage only last month.


  • #1158
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,090 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Seems you may be disappointed.

    :D
    Wow, first paddyandy, now Actor. The average level of Boards' users' homophobia has just fallen like a stone.

    On a related note, occurrences of "sodomy", "anal prolapse" and "rip each others anal passages to shreds" in Boards' posts have dropped from record highs to zero

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1159
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    robindch wrote: »
    The folks from Australia, they say no.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/australia-same-sex-marriage-600348-Sep2012/

    It shouldn't be all that surprising. While the media here like to show Australia as being an enlightened utopia it is still very backward in many ways. Racism for example, is a huge issue there, particularly in relation to the Aboriginal community. heck, only a couple of generations ago they were classed beneath animals in terms of rights.


  • #1160
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    Galvasean wrote: »
    It shouldn't be all that surprising. While the media here like to show Australia as being an enlightened utopia it is still very backward in many ways. Racism for example, is a huge issue there, particularly in relation to the Aboriginal community. heck, only a couple of generations ago they were classed beneath animals in terms of rights.

    Austrailia

    The Texas of Oceana


  • #1161
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Racism for example, is a huge issue there

    As is sexism.
    Those comments started off this page.


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,036 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Do people have liberal views say if three people want to marry? Or four?
    Or if a 57 year old wishes to marry a 13 year old? Just throwing it out there.

    I would be in favour of Gay Marriage, but I am wondering is this really a big deal? Like is Marriage really that important? It's a nice fluffy feeling and it encourages people to live a certain way which benefits society.

    Just throwing it out there.

    Is it not subjective what marriage should and shouldn't be? For example, in Ireland you have to apply to get married and wait 3 months. In Nigeria you can get married straight away. So whose idea of marriage is more correct? Or whose is too conservative?

    It's hard to make logical fool proof arguments what marriage should and shouldn't be. The way I see it is if a hetrosexual person is allowed to do something well then the homosexual should be allowed do the exact same thing. However, I don't see watertight arguments there are for what marriage should be in general.


  • #1163
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It's hard to make logical fool proof arguments what marriage should and shouldn't be.

    You mean like this...
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Or if a 57 year old wishes to marry a 13 year old? Just throwing it out there.

    FYI


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I would be in favour of Gay Marriage, but I am wondering is this really a big deal? Like is Marriage really that important? It's a nice fluffy feeling and it encourages people to live a certain way which benefits society.

    Just throwing it out there.

    Is it not subjective what marriage should and shouldn't be? For example, in Ireland you have to apply to get married and wait 3 months. In Nigeria you can get married straight away. So whose idea of marriage is more correct? Or whose is too conservative?

    It's hard to make logical fool proof arguments what marriage should and shouldn't be. The way I see it is if a hetrosexual person is allowed to do something well then the homosexual should be allowed do the exact same thing. However, I don't see watertight arguments there are for what marriage should be in general.

    I think you answered your own question. Equality is a big deal especially to those deprived of it.

    EDIT: Oh, and for the record, no I have no problem, morally anyway, with more than two consenting adults opting to get married. I think the underage reference was unhelpful though.


  • #1164
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    Galvasean wrote: »
    It shouldn't be all that surprising. While the media here like to show Australia as being an enlightened utopia it is still very backward in many ways. Racism for example, is a huge issue there, particularly in relation to the Aboriginal community. heck, only a couple of generations ago they were classed beneath animals in terms of rights.
    That was a bit surprising for me to learn. My sister and her boyfriend have been living there for nearly 2 years and she started talking about the aboriginals, so I cut in and said that'd be pretty cool to meet them, you know based off everything I saw on TV. But she said "no ****ing way!", that everyone sees them as really dangerous because all they do is drink, and that it "does something to them and they go crazy".
    She had the same sort of perception as me about them but obviously that has been knocked out of her from living with other Australians. They really do see the aboriginals as beneath them.

    It's not just Australians that hold that degree of racism towards the natives. I know a guy from New Zealand and he's of mixed race so I asked was he of Maori decent, stupidly thinking that because these were big tattooed guys that they were really cool, but no he was actually very offended. They really look down on them just as much as the Australians look down the aboriginals.

    It's a bit odd considering these would be quite socially progressive countries on a lot of levels, you'd think they would be long passed those kinds of attitudes.


  • #1165
    Undergod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Do people have liberal views say if three people want to marry?

    Yes.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Or four?

    Yes.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Or if a 57 year old wishes to marry a 13 year old? Just throwing it out there.

    No.

    Regarding the aboriginal thing; alcohol ****s up hunter-gatherer societies something fierce. Pre-agriculture peoples don't have the biological or social mechanisms to handle it.


  • #1166
    hotjock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6 ✭hotjock


    I have no problem with gay marriage. I have a problem with marriage in general, or more specifically the state's involvement in it. The law we have were devised for a situation where a man and a woman got married, had children after than, and stayed together until one of them died. This no longer reflects the current lifestyles of the majority of people and therefore it is bad law.
    What we need to ask is what involvement the state should have in these matters. For me, instead of adding on to the current laws, we should seek to abandon them completely and treat people as individuals. We should simplify the laws into the following -
    1. Every citizen is treated equally in law.
    2. Every Parent has a responsibility to provide and care for their children until they are 18 (notwithstanding that this responsibility can be transferred to another person or persons through adoption).
    3. If citizens are co-habiting and financially interdependent, then at the ending of that interdependence the assets and income of the citizens shall be divided having regard to the length of the interdependence, the contribution each citizen has made to the generation of the assets and income and the lifestyle to which each has become accustomed.
    4. Thats it! For everything else (tax, property, welfare etc.) you are an individual and are treated as such.

    Any committment, transfer of assets etc. becomes a personal matter for the people involved be they same sex or opposite sex.

    The question to ask yourself what business is it of the state to get involved in all these matters.


  • #1167
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,270 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Or if a 57 year old wishes to marry a 13 year old? Just throwing it out there.

    Trying to drag people down a slippery slope here. It's like saying if you support man and woman getting married, you must support a man marrying his daughter. Argue the issue at hand: two people of consenting age looking to get married.


  • #1168
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,036 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Stark wrote: »
    Trying to drag people down a slippery slope here. It's like saying if you support man and woman getting married, you must support a man marrying his daughter. Argue the issue at hand: two people of consenting age looking to get married.

    Yeah or someone marrying their cousin. You see the thing I am trying to say is there is an element of subjectivity what marriage should be. If two consenting cousins want to get married why shouldn't they be allowed to?

    Equal rights for gays? Sure. Equals rights for consenting cousins? Why not?

    There are parameters on what marriage should be and some of them are subjective and arbitrary.


  • #1169
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    1ZRed wrote: »
    That was a bit surprising for me to learn. My sister and her boyfriend have been living there for nearly 2 years and she started talking about the aboriginals, so I cut in and said that'd be pretty cool to meet them, you know based off everything I saw on TV. But she said "no ****ing way!", that everyone sees them as really dangerous because all they do is drink, and that it "does something to them and they go crazy".
    She had the same sort of perception as me about them but obviously that has been knocked out of her from living with other Australians. They really do see the aboriginals as beneath them.

    It's not just Australians that hold that degree of racism towards the natives. I know a guy from New Zealand and he's of mixed race so I asked was he of Maori decent, stupidly thinking that because these were big tattooed guys that they were really cool, but no he was actually very offended. They really look down on them just as much as the Australians look down the aboriginals.

    It's a bit odd considering these would be quite socially progressive countries on a lot of levels, you'd think they would be long passed those kinds of attitudes.
    Insert Traveller for Aborigine or Maori and you're not far off a prototypical Irish response to our ethnic minority.


  • #1170
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    28064212 wrote: »
    Wow, first paddyandy, now Actor. The average level of Boards' users' homophobia has just fallen like a stone.

    On a related note, occurrences of "sodomy", "anal prolapse" and "rip each others anal passages to shreds" in Boards' posts have dropped from record highs to zero


    ....in fairness, they had been ripping the arse out of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,618 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Moving on...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement