nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Bubbaclaus

Sad to think people like her still exist in 2014.

Will she even get any votes outside of her family members?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RobertKK

Muise... wrote: »

There was nothing to answer.

Like the media, it doesn't see what it doesn't want to see.

shruikan2553

RobertKK wrote: »

Vast majority of sex child abusers are men.

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html

But hey lets increase risks of child sexual abuse. This is going to be a ticking time bomb that in time will explode like the child abuse in the church - where men are not allowed under church rules to be alone with minors because of what happened in the past, to protect both the minor and priest.

The vast majority of child abusers are closely related to the child. Should we take children away from their parents? You want them to be safe right? We can give them to married lesbian couples where they are safe.

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

Vast majority of sex child abusers are men.

Don't allow men to marry anyone so. Problem solved!

Muise...

RobertKK wrote: »

Like the media, it doesn't see what it doesn't want to see.

And you seeing horrors like child abuse as a direct consequence of gay marriage - that's seeing what is not there. Delusional.

(btw, your stats, apart from being completely inapplicable, fail to include the fact that women can be gay too)

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

But hey lets increase risks of child sexual abuse. This is going to be a ticking time bomb that in time will explode like the child abuse in the church - where men are not allowed under church rules to be alone with minors because of what happened in the past, to protect both the minor and priest.

How are you going to increase the risk with gay marriage? Gay marriage in Ireland will have no change to gay people adopting children. If gay marriage doesn't come in gay people can still adopt children.

So yeah you've your own opinion. Yes you can vote whatever way you want to vote. However your logic is wrong.

RobertKK

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The vast majority of child abusers are closely related to the child. Should we take children away from their parents? You want them to be safe right? We can give them to married lesbian couples where they are safe.

Do they have to be married though? What about people who live together and have children?

When one puts a child in care of someone, they are closely related in terms of association and dependency.

Bubbaclaus

RobertKK wrote: »

Some see it as anti-gay, others might view it as child protection, as you don't have to be gay to have a same sex marriage.

You also don't have to be straight to be in a opposite-sex marriage.

Are you looking for a ban on all marriages? Because that is the only way your arguments would be valid.

Philo Beddoe

RobertKK wrote: »

Of course the media didn't rabidly report why Russia brought in laws that banned foreign adoption to single men whether gay or straight where same sex marriage/unions are allowed.

What in your opinions are the reasons that the media failed to rabidly report?

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

How are you going to increase the risk with gay marriage? Gay marriage in Ireland will have no change to gay people adopting children. If gay marriage doesn't come in gay people can still adopt children.

So yeah you've your own opinion. Yes you can vote whatever way you want to vote. However your logic is wrong.

Adoption by a single man or a male couple should be banned for child safety reasons.
We saw how people went on about men in the church and how one wouldn't leave their child unsupervised by a child protection person given what happened there, even though the vast majority had nothing to do with child abuse.
Yet we allow men adopt children as if they are not men like the priests who abused were.
The difference being one group for child safety reasons/false accusations reasons are not allowed be alone with a child.
It is an open door for lots of abuse cases to come to the fore in the future, may take decades for it to be exposed.

Muise...

RobertKK wrote: »

Adoption by a single man or a male couple should be banned for child safety reasons.
We saw how people went on about men in the church and how one wouldn't leave their child unsupervised by a child protection person given what happened there, even though the vast majority had nothing to do with child abuse.
Yet we allow men adopt children as if they are not men like the priests who abused were.
The difference being one group for child safety reasons/false accusations reasons are not allowed be alone with a child.
It is an open door for lots of abuse cases to come to the fore in the future, may take decades for it to be exposed.

That one group are not adoptive parents, who are vetted and tested and deemed up to the task of bringing up children, whom they love. Your slant on this is disgusting and insulting to everyone.

Bubbaclaus

RobertKK wrote: »

Adoption by a single man or a male couple should be banned for child safety reasons.
We saw how people went on about men in the church and how one wouldn't leave their child unsupervised by a child protection person given what happened there, even though the vast majority had nothing to do with child abuse.
Yet we allow men adopt children as if they are not men like the priests who abused were.
The difference being one group for child safety reasons/false accusations reasons are not allowed be alone with a child.
It is an open door for lots of abuse cases to come to the fore in the future, may take decades for it to be exposed.

Why do you think gay marriage is only for men?

And why are you tying gay marriage in with child abuse? Using the same 'logic' the Catholic Church should be banned.

jimgoose

RobertKK wrote: »

Adoption by a single man or a male couple should be banned for child safety reasons...

I resent this. Greatly resent it indeed. You should have a little faith in yourself. Many priests were either damaged by the peculiar attitude of the Catholic Church to sexuality and relationships, or were so before signing up and saw it as a sort of "refuge".

Homosexual men and women may already adopt children singly, and I would see same-sex marriage as even safer for any child. The old Loyal Opposition, or "War Office", wha'? The only problem I foresee with this is the prospect of two eighteen-stone Rugby players handbagging each other in department stores over curtain styles.

Going Strong

RobertKK wrote: »

Adoption by a single man or a male couple should be banned for child safety reasons.

So, if two gay males in a long term relationship father a child through a surrogate mother, they should be arrested for potential child abuse? Or have I pointed out a glaring loophole in your brilliant plan for bigotry by law?

Turtwig

It's not just men that about children!

Un Croissant

RobertKK wrote: »

Adoption by a single man or a male couple should be banned for child safety reasons.
We saw how people went on about men in the church and how one wouldn't leave their child unsupervised by a child protection person given what happened there, even though the vast majority had nothing to do with child abuse.
Yet we allow men adopt children as if they are not men like the priests who abused were.
The difference being one group for child safety reasons/false accusations reasons are not allowed be alone with a child.
It is an open door for lots of abuse cases to come to the fore in the future, may take decades for it to be exposed.

Holy shoit. Im a child molester/?????

RobertKK

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

What in your opinions are the reasons that the media failed to rabidly report?

Did the media here report about the gay laws in Russia?
Did they report the banning of adoption to single men and to countries where same sex marriage is allowed?
Did they report why the banning of adoption to single men whether straight or gay was brought in?
For the first two we heard it reported, we were not told about the Russian child adopted by a man in Australia who married another man and took the child around the world to be sexually abused by other men.
The media covers up these things as best they can, as they promote the gay agenda and don't care that the gay agenda they promote can be hijacked by child abusers. It is a great cover.
It will be like the BBC who knew about Jimmy Saville as far back as 1959 and did nothing, or the church who also failed to deal with sex abuse.
One used fame to abuse, the other used trust and respect and with males adopting, it will be the fear of being viewed as homophobic if against it that will and has already allowed sexual abuse.

Bubbaclaus

What if an excellent single father (we will say the mother died) realises that he is gay and decides to get married to the man he loves.

Does the child then get taken off him for child abuse? Even though the kid gets nothing but love from his father and step-father?

This logic is twisted. And scares the living hell out of me. While we're at it lets just lock up all men in case they abuse children.

RobertKK

Un Croissant wrote: »

Holy shoit. Im a child molester/?????

Are you? Or are you jumping to assumptions?

Un Croissant

RobertKK wrote: »

Did the media here report about the gay laws in Russia?
Did they report the banning of adoption to single men and to countries where same sex marriage is allowed?
Did they report why the banning of adoption to single men whether straight or gay was brought in?
For the first two we heard it reported, we were not told about the Russian child adopted by a man in Australia who married another man and took the child around the world to be sexually abused by other men.
The media covers up these things as best they can, as they promote the gay agenda and don't care that the gay agenda they promote can be hijacked by child abusers. It is a great cover.
It will be like the BBC who knew about Jimmy Saville as far back as 1959 and did nothing, or the church who also failed to deal with sex abuse.
One used fame to abuse, the other used trust and respect and with males adopting, it will be the fear of being viewed as homophobic if against it that will and has already allowed sexual abuse.

And this makes all men possible child molesters, how?

Mr. CooL ICE

Un Croissant wrote: »

Holy shoit. Im a child molester/?????

Yep, you are. You just don't know it yet

Un Croissant

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you? Or are you jumping to assumptions?

Well I was once alone in a room with a child. Please advise. Am I a paedophile?

Going Strong

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you? Or are you jumping to assumptions?

You tell us since you seem to see child abusers everywhere.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

The media covers up these things as best they can, as they promote the gay agenda and don't care that the gay agenda they promote can be hijacked by child abusers. It is a great cover.
It will be like the BBC who knew about Jimmy Saville as far back as 1959 and did nothing, or the church who also failed to deal with sex abuse.
One used fame to abuse, the other used trust and respect and with males adopting, it will be the fear of being viewed as homophobic if against it that will and has already allowed sexual abuse.

So you're against men adopting?

This once again has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Bubbaclaus

RobertKK wrote: »

For the first two we heard it reported, we were not told about the Russian child adopted by a man in Australia who married another man and took the child around the world to be sexually abused by other men.

How did you hear about it then? Did you google "excuses to be against same-sex marriage without sounding like a homophobe" and you found 1 single case?

There's plenty of incidents where opposite-sex couples were abusing children. The Ian Watkins case lately had no 'gays' involved.

ben.schlomo

LordChessington wrote: »

Yep, you are. You just don't know it yet

At least we have Theresa and Robert and they knew for us all. Lucky us.

Un Croissant

LordChessington wrote: »

Yep, you are. You just don't know it yet

Who knows. The children might tempt me. Little feckers that they are

Philo Beddoe

RobertKK wrote: »

Did the media here report about the gay laws in Russia?
Did they report the banning of adoption to single men and to countries where same sex marriage is allowed?
Did they report why the banning of adoption to single men whether straight or gay was brought in?
For the first two we heard it reported, we were not told about the Russian child adopted by a man in Australia who married another man and took the child around the world to be sexually abused by other men.
The media covers up these things as best they can, as they promote the gay agenda and don't care that the gay agenda they promote can be hijacked by child abusers. It is a great cover.
It will be like the BBC who knew about Jimmy Saville as far back as 1959 and did nothing, or the church who also failed to deal with sex abuse.
One used fame to abuse, the other used trust and respect and with males adopting, it will be the fear of being viewed as homophobic if against it that will and has already allowed sexual abuse.

Just answer the question.

iwantmydinner

RobertKK wrote: »

Adoption by a single man or a male couple should be banned for child safety reasons.

That's one of the most disgusting statements I've ever read

jimgoose

RobertKK wrote: »

Did the media here report about the gay laws in Russia?...

Yes, it was in the Independent last February. Bobbo, I think if you were any further in the closet you'd be in Narnia having a heart-to-heart with Aslan the lion! :pac::pac::pac:

RobertKK

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What if an excellent single father (we will say the mother died) realises that he is gay and decides to get married to the man he loves.

Does the child then get taken off him for child abuse? Even though the kid gets nothing but love from his father and step-father?

This logic is twisted. And scares the living hell out of me. While we're at it lets just lock up all men in case they abuse children.

The twisted logic is, a man in the priesthood cannot be alone with a child, they are the child protection rules. It doesn't mean the priest is a child abuser.
The state allows men adopt and people want to act if child abusers won't abuse the adoption system, like they did the priesthood.

As for your analogy, the biological parent is always the best first option, before any other option is viewed.