Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

mickydoomsux · 24-05-2014 05:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You don't marry your close blood relations because you love them.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between those types of love is worrying.

Bubbaclaus · 24-05-2014 05:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think you posting like that is necessary, who said anything about women voting, racial rights?

You took one line out of my post and didn't deal with the rest of it. That lacks you putting yourself into a position to understand why someone might not support it.

Love doesn't mean marriage is necessary. You don't marry your close blood relations because you love them.
If I loved another man, it doesn't mean marriage is needed because other men might also love another man and they might want marriage.

I'm never going to understand your point of view. This is exactly the same as women vote and other civil rights movements. As things stand the gay community do not have the same rights as the rest of us. We have the choice to get married and they do not. How can you possibly be ok with that?

I believe in equal rights for all. You clearly do not, which is fine I suppose, but something that I am never going to understand. Hitler had the same idea.

hotmail.com · 24-05-2014 05:38PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is easy to knock people without debating the points.

Your points are completely ridiculous. You have written dozens of anti-gay comments going back months.

I just wonder why?

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 05:40PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The fact that you can't tell the difference between those types of love is worrying.

Who says I can't?

It is not like people who did not know their sibling and fell in love with them didn't plan on marriage, because they didn't know they should be allowed marry?

Muise... · 24-05-2014 05:43PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Who says I can't?

It is not like people who did not know their sibling and fell in love with them didn't plan on marriage, because they didn't know they should be allowed marry?

Did you dip that argument in an oestrogen stream?

Corkfeen · 24-05-2014 05:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I did, and in other news Japan removed the compulsory nature of receiving the vaccine.

No,no you didn't. You cited the cdc report that points out there is no casual link between serious ailments and the vaccine. You addressed nothing.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 05:51PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Your points are completely ridiculous. You have written dozens of anti-gay comments going back months.

I just wonder why?

I posted articles on how gay people will find themselves abused by nefarious people who will use the cover of SSM for respectability purposes, with the intention of adopting a child to abuse.
I posted about actual cases in Australia and in the UK. In Australia, the media had this couple of men who were fighting for same sex marriage (as a cover I believe), ABC reported what a great couple they were and how they deserved to be allowed to marry. They had this child at the time, ABC didn't know the two men who later did marry, were taking the child around the world to be abused by other child abusers.
In the UK two men were fostering children, they were abusing the children, the social worker reported how she feared being branded homophobic when she first became concerned for the children.

I saw how the church was used by child abusers for respectability and easy access to children. We saw how all priests were branded as paedophile priests by some, we don't want the same type of abuse being directed at good gay people.
We see hoe child abusers go to where they believe it will be easy to access children - scouts, teachers, swimming coaches, fake same sex couples where people are afraid to challenge because some people like name calling...

Turtwig · 24-05-2014 05:54PM

Heterosexual couples will also abuse children. Should we also stop them from adopting because some of them may try use it as a cover for abusing kids?

Reformed Character · 24-05-2014 05:56PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I posted articles on how gay people will find themselves abused by nefarious people who will use the cover of SSM for respectability purposes, with the intention of adopting a child to abuse.
I posted about actual cases in Australia and in the UK. In Australia, the media had this couple of men who were fighting for same sex marriage (as a cover I believe), ABC reported what a great couple they were and how they deserved to be allowed to marry. They had this child at the time, ABC didn't know the two men who later did marry, were taking the child around the world to be abused by other child abusers.
In the UK two men were fostering children, they were abusing the children, the social worker reported how she feared being branded homophobic when she first became concerned for the children.

I saw how the church was used by child abusers for respectability and easy access to children. We saw how all priests were branded as paedophile priests by some, we don't want the same type of abuse being directed at good gay people.
We see hoe child abusers go to where they believe it will be easy to access children - scouts, teachers, swimming coaches, fake same sex couples where people are afraid to challenge because some people like name calling...

Sick drivel.

Nodin · 24-05-2014 05:56PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not me forcing my morals on anyone, a referendum is to ask the people for their views on a certain subject.
Otherwise we should do away with democracy and just allow the government to change the constitution without asking what the people want.
A majority may want same sex marriage, a majority may not want it. It will be the people who decide, to say one is imposing their morals is a nonsensical argument as voting yes is also someone voting for what they believe is moral. .

By voting against it, you prevent it, therefore forcing your morality on others. It's not a referendum to see how many people like the idea.

RobertKK wrote: »

Sometimes it seems only liberal morals are excepted, if not liberal one is likely to be branded something like morally reprehensible..

Liberal allows you to remain catholic/protestant and not be gay, or gay marry.

.

RobertKK wrote: »

I believe in freedom, freedom means I don't have to agree with SSM if I don't believe in it as a concept...

If you vote against gay marriage in a referendum, you only believe in what "freedom" suits you.

Nodin · 24-05-2014 05:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I posted articles on (..........)like name calling...

The usual sad nasty homophobic bile.

Bubbaclaus · 24-05-2014 05:59PM

People like RobertKK and Theresa Heaney scare me. Thankfully those types are in a massive minority that will never have any say on any policies in this country.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:02PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Heterosexual couples will also abuse children. Should we also stop them from adopting because some of them may try use it as a cover for abusing kids?

We already have single people who can adopt so gay couples can already adopt.
Marriage gives the couple more points in terms of being stable for a child.

diograis · 24-05-2014 06:04PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I posted articles on how gay people will find themselves abused by nefarious people who will use the cover of SSM for respectability purposes, with the intention of adopting a child to abuse.
I posted about actual cases in Australia and in the UK. In Australia, the media had this couple of men who were fighting for same sex marriage (as a cover I believe), ABC reported what a great couple they were and how they deserved to be allowed to marry. They had this child at the time, ABC didn't know the two men who later did marry, were taking the child around the world to be abused by other child abusers.
In the UK two men were fostering children, they were abusing the children, the social worker reported how she feared being branded homophobic when she first became concerned for the children.

I saw how the church was used by child abusers for respectability and easy access to children. We saw how all priests were branded as paedophile priests by some, we don't want the same type of abuse being directed at good gay people.
We see hoe child abusers go to where they believe it will be easy to access children - scouts, teachers, swimming coaches, fake same sex couples where people are afraid to challenge because some people like name calling...

well aren't you just adorable

hotmail.com · 24-05-2014 06:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I posted articles on how gay people will find themselves abused by nefarious people who will use the cover of SSM for respectability purposes, with the intention of adopting a child to abuse.
I posted about actual cases in Australia and in the UK. In Australia, the media had this couple of men who were fighting for same sex marriage (as a cover I believe), ABC reported what a great couple they were and how they deserved to be allowed to marry. They had this child at the time, ABC didn't know the two men who later did marry, were taking the child around the world to be abused by other child abusers.
In the UK two men were fostering children, they were abusing the children, the social worker reported how she feared being branded homophobic when she first became concerned for the children.

I saw how the church was used by child abusers for respectability and easy access to children. We saw how all priests were branded as paedophile priests by some, we don't want the same type of abuse being directed at good gay people.
We see hoe child abusers go to where they believe it will be easy to access children - scouts, teachers, swimming coaches, fake same sex couples where people are afraid to challenge because some people like name calling...

More anti-gay rubbish.

cometogether · 24-05-2014 06:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I posted articles on how gay people will find themselves abused by nefarious people who will use the cover of SSM for respectability purposes, with the intention of adopting a child to abuse.
I posted about actual cases in Australia and in the UK. In Australia, the media had this couple of men who were fighting for same sex marriage (as a cover I believe), ABC reported what a great couple they were and how they deserved to be allowed to marry. They had this child at the time, ABC didn't know the two men who later did marry, were taking the child around the world to be abused by other child abusers.
In the UK two men were fostering children, they were abusing the children, the social worker reported how she feared being branded homophobic when she first became concerned for the children.

I saw how the church was used by child abusers for respectability and easy access to children. We saw how all priests were branded as paedophile priests by some, we don't want the same type of abuse being directed at good gay people.
We see hoe child abusers go to where they believe it will be easy to access children - scouts, teachers, swimming coaches, fake same sex couples where people are afraid to challenge because some people like name calling...

You'd want to have a word with yourself. Honest to God.

PopePalpatine · 24-05-2014 06:11PM

Add him to the ignore list, there's nothing worth reading in his posts anyway.

Corkfeen · 24-05-2014 06:11PM

RobertKK wrote: »

We already have single people who can adopt so gay couples can already adopt.
Marriage gives the couple more points in terms of being stable for a child.

That's because they're as competent parents as a straight couple. But given your statements throughout this topic,it's not exactly shocking that you don't really like to rely on facts.

podgemonster · 24-05-2014 06:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I posted articles on how gay people will find themselves abused by nefarious people who will use the cover of SSM for respectability purposes, with the intention of adopting a child to abuse.
I posted about actual cases in Australia and in the UK. In Australia, the media had this couple of men who were fighting for same sex marriage (as a cover I believe), ABC reported what a great couple they were and how they deserved to be allowed to marry. They had this child at the time, ABC didn't know the two men who later did marry, were taking the child around the world to be abused by other child abusers.
In the UK two men were fostering children, they were abusing the children, the social worker reported how she feared being branded homophobic when she first became concerned for the children.

I saw how the church was used by child abusers for respectability and easy access to children. We saw how all priests were branded as paedophile priests by some, we don't want the same type of abuse being directed at good gay people.
We see hoe child abusers go to where they believe it will be easy to access children - scouts, teachers, swimming coaches, fake same sex couples where people are afraid to challenge because some people like name calling...

Your username is missing a K

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:18PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

People like RobertKK and Theresa Heaney scare me. Thankfully those types are in a massive minority that will never have any say on any policies in this country.

I scare you lol :pac:

My policies are keep marriage as it - oh that scares you.
I believe we should respect human life - oh that scares you too.
I believe we should reduce pollution and look after the environment whether one believes in man made climate change or not.
I believe in vaccination programs and I do invest in biotech companies that produce vaccines, I just believe we should not pretend there aren't risks or rare risks.
I believe we should speak and treat others with common courtesy and not call other names, as a person who was bullied as a child, I know the effects this can have on a person.
I believe it is better to give than to receive, as one never knows when they may need to receive in return.
I believe we should not be anti-immigration which some seem to be, we must remember that the Irish have emigrated for generations and we would like people to accept us.

If I scare you, then you must live in fear.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:20PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Add him to the ignore list, there's nothing worth reading in his posts anyway.

Group think is better I take it.

Bubbaclaus · 24-05-2014 06:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I scare you lol :pac:

My policies are keep marriage as it - oh that scares you.
I believe we should respect human life - oh that scares you too.
I believe we should reduce pollution and look after the environment whether one believes in man made climate change or not.
I believe in vaccination programs and I do invest in biotech companies that produce vaccines, I just believe we should not pretend there aren't risks or rare risks.
I believe we should speak and treat others with common courtesy and not call other names, as a person who was bullied as a child, I know the effects this can have on a person.
I believe it is better to give than to receive, as one never knows when they may need to receive in return.
I believe we should not be anti-immigration which some seem to be, we must remember that the Irish have emigrated for generations and we would like people to accept us.

If I scare you, then you must live in fear.

You scare me because you don't believe in equal rights for all. Which is a pretty horrifying and backwards thing to believe in in 2014. It's not 1924 anymore.

Nodin · 24-05-2014 06:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Group think is better I take it.

Rather better than forcing your notions on others.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:24PM

upyores wrote: »

Sick drivel.

links

http://www.smh.com.au/national/named-the-australian-paedophile-jailed-for-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html

Standing before an American court convicted of the most heinous of child sex crimes, the double lives of Australian citizen Mark J. Newton and his long-term boyfriend Peter Truong were laid bare.
‘‘Being a father was an honour and a privilege that amounted to the best six years of my life,’’ the American-born Newton, 42, told the court.
Moments later Newton was sentenced to 40 years in prison for sexually abusing the boy he and Truong, 36 from Queensland, had ‘‘adopted’’ after paying a Russian woman $8000 to be their surrogate in 2005.
Police believe the pair had adopted the boy ‘‘for the sole purpose of exploitation’’. The abuse began just days after his birth and over six years the couple travelled the world, offering him up for sex with at least eight men, recording the abuse and uploading the footage to an international syndicate known as the Boy Lovers Network.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/named-the-australian-paedophile-jailed-for-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html#ixzz32eejmzSU

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/24/children.ukcrime

An independent inquiry is to be held into how a gay foster couple duped social services over photographs of young boys in their care whom they abused.

Sick drivel? I posted facts.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:26PM

Nodin wrote: »

Rather better than forcing your notions on others.

How can you say that when you refuse to accept I am allowed my own views.
I don't have to hold your views, I never called anyone a name for not holding my views, yet I have been called names for holding views of other people.

Lets be straight here on who is forcing views on who.

Bubbaclaus · 24-05-2014 06:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

links

http://www.smh.com.au/national/named-the-australian-paedophile-jailed-for-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/24/children.ukcrime

Sick drivel? I posted facts.

1 example? Wow.

I could find 100 examples of the same thing happen in a 'straight couple' scenario.

Nodin · 24-05-2014 06:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Sick drivel? I posted facts.

no, you carefully selected incidents that backed up your pre-existing bias. If you had quoted facts, you would have a comparison with the number of heterosexual couples who abuse children. Hence my entirely accurate description of it as sick homophobic bile.

Nodin · 24-05-2014 06:28PM

RobertKK wrote: »

How can you say that when you refuse to accept I am allowed my own views.
I don't have to hold your views, I never called anyone a name for not holding my views, yet I have been called names for holding views of other people.

Lets be straight here on who is forcing views on who.

I didn't say you shouldn't be allowed hold your views. What I said was that you are forcing your views on others by voting against gay marriage. Its fairly simple, clear cut and obvious.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:29PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You scare me because you don't believe in equal rights for all. Which is a pretty horrifying and backwards thing to believe in in 2014. It's not 1924 anymore.

It is easy scare you, if not supporting SSM scares you.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:31PM

Nodin wrote: »

I didn't say you shouldn't be allowed hold your views. What I said was that you are forcing your views on others by voting against gay marriage. Its fairly simple, clear cut and obvious.

A referendum is asking the opinion of the people. My opinion is not forcing my view on anyone, it is the collective views of the nation that decide what society wants.
If a majority are against it, should we be forced to have something a majority don't want, is this the type of democracy you want?

Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Comments