Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 02:53PM

Daith wrote: »

So you're against men adopting?

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

RobertKKK should just tell us why he really is against same-sex marriage, not this unrelated rubbish that isn't even relevant.

I'm a straight man, but I'm going to support the gay community in their battle for civil rights until they get them.

shruikan2553 · 27-05-2014 02:53PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Does anyone have to be married? Due to our laws being married has benefits. Tax credits if my wife doesn't work, next of kin and in the case of gay couples with children especially they won't lose the child if their partner dies.

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

Turns out children are safe with nobody thanks to your research. We'll lock them all away with constant CCTV so we know they are safe.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 02:54PM

jimgoose wrote: »

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:

The only people in the closet are those who live in a fairyland where abusers are nice people and will not use the system for their own ends.

Muise... · 27-05-2014 02:54PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Yeah, because the adoption system is as lax with checking as the altar boy roster at the parish church. FFS.

ben.schlomo · 27-05-2014 02:55PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

The state allows it after a period of evaluation and vetting, something which the priesthood never had, therefore you can now quit linking the two.

Going Strong · 27-05-2014 02:56PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The only people in the closet are those who live in a fairyland where abusers are nice people and will not use the system for their own ends.

An ex of mine was abused by her father. There, proof that heterosexual marriages are a cover for child abuse. Ban this filth now.

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 02:57PM

RobertKKK, do you not realise adoption requires a stringent evaluation and vetting before being confirmed, whereas the dirty priests had no such vetting?

You should stop comparing the 2, since it makes you look foolish.

jimgoose · 27-05-2014 02:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The only people in the closet are those who live in a fairyland where abusers are nice people and will not use the system for their own ends.

Don't forget those stuck in a 1950s timewarp with John Charles McQuaid's voice in their heads telling them that "abusers" and homosexual people are the same thing. Hint: they aren't.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 02:58PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

RobertKKK should just tell us why he really is against same-sex marriage, not this unrelated rubbish that isn't even relevant.

I'm a straight man, but I'm going to support the gay community in their battle for civil rights until they get them.

I support the traditional view of marriage, I think same sex marriage gives more cover for child abusers who may be straight or gay.
One doesn't have to be gay to marry another man if same sex marriage is allowed...

Going Strong · 27-05-2014 02:59PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I support the traditional view of marriage, I think same sex marriage gives more cover for child abusers who may be straight or gay.
One doesn't have to be gay to marry another man if same sex marriage is allowed...

Afraid you'll get offers eh?

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 02:59PM

This reminds me of the Waterford Whispers article from a few months back. (This is satire for anybody unaware)

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/04/07/irish-paedophiles-sick-of-being-treated-like-gays/

jimgoose · 27-05-2014 02:59PM

RobertKK wrote: »

...One doesn't have to be gay to marry another man if same sex marriage is allowed...

A-ha! So that's what the clever bastards are at! Robert, I'm going to leave you to it. :pac::pac::pac:

folan · 27-05-2014 03:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I support the traditional view of marriage, I think same sex marriage gives more cover for child abusers who may be straight or gay.
One doesn't have to be gay to marry another man if same sex marriage is allowed...

are you suggesting that homosexuals are more likely to be child abusers? or why is it that same sex marriage gives more cover? what do you mean by more cover?

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 03:01PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I support the traditional view of marriage, I think same sex marriage gives more cover for child abusers who may be straight or gay.
One doesn't have to be gay to marry another man if same sex marriage is allowed...

All adoptions are vetted and evaluated. This will not change.

Bringing in same-sex marriage has no affect on adoption, so for your own sake please stop linking the 2.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 03:01PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

RobertKKK, do you not realise adoption requires a stringent evaluation and vetting before being confirmed, whereas the dirty priests had no such vetting?

You should stop comparing the 2, since it makes you look foolish.

It is to put up an appearance once you have no record. vetting procedures will not stop people with no record of abuse. Most abuse is not reported.

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 03:02PM

RobertKKK, if there is a link between child abuse and same-sex marriage as you claim...surely it would be an opposite-sex marriage that would provide more cover for a child abuser?

shruikan2553 · 27-05-2014 03:03PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I support the traditional view of marriage, I think same sex marriage gives more cover for child abusers who may be straight or gay.
One doesn't have to be gay to marry another man if same sex marriage is allowed...

What powers does the traditional view of marriage have that prevent child abuse? Is it possible to harness this energy?
What does children have to do about marriage? Are an unmarried couple who have a child at risk of causing child abuse? What about 2 married women? According to you they are safer than a traditional marriage.

ben.schlomo · 27-05-2014 03:03PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is to put up an appearance once you have no record. vetting procedures will not stop people with no record of abuse. Most abuse is not reported.

Have you ever been in the same room as a child Robert?

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 03:07PM

RobertKKK, do you have a problem with same-sex marriage between 2 women?

Nodin · 27-05-2014 03:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So the people shouldn't (...........)n one casts their ballot.

People shouldn't be allowed force their values on others, which is what you advocate.

Robertkk wrote:

Vast majority of sex child abusers are men.

In 100% of heteroxexual marriages, one of the partners is male. Are you advocating that only Lesbian couples adopt?

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 03:07PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

All adoptions are vetted and evaluated. This will not change.

Bringing in same-sex marriage has no affect on adoption, so for your own sake please stop linking the 2.

No effect on adoption, but will have an effect on perception and fears of sexual orientation discrimination cases being brought if a same sex couple are denied.

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 03:09PM

Nodin wrote: »

In 100% of heteroxexual marriages, one of the partners is male. Are you advocating that only Lesbian couples adopt?

This is the only conclusion I can also reach from his argument.

So really RobertKK isn't against same-sex marriage at all. In fact, the only marriage he approves of is same-sex marriage between 2 women.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 03:10PM

Nodin wrote: »

People shouldn't be allowed force their values on others, which is what you advocate.

In 100% of heteroxexual marriages, one of the partners is male. Are you advocating that only Lesbian couples adopt?

Yes, Lesbian only would be far safer from a statistics point of view: 1 in 3,300 women who molest children versus 1 in 20 men who sexually abuse children.

Biological parents in most cases is the best option.

Daith · 27-05-2014 03:11PM

RobertKK wrote: »

No effect on adoption, but will have an effect on perception and fears of sexual orientation discrimination cases being brought if a same sex couple are denied.

Ah perception and fears........

So at the moment a gay man can adopt a child but we shouldn't allow two gay men adopt because of fear.

Bubbaclaus · 27-05-2014 03:11PM

RobertKK wrote: »

No effect on adoption, but will have an effect on perception and fears of sexual orientation discrimination cases being brought if a same sex couple are denied.

You want sexual orientation discrimination to prevent sexual orientation discrimination?

Whaaaa??

ben.schlomo · 27-05-2014 03:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, Lesbian only would be far safer from a statistics point of view: 1 in 3,300 women who molest children versus 1 in 20 men who sexually abuse children.

Biological parents in most cases is the best option.

''So Theresa your initial position on gay marriage was wrong, you are in effect in favour of it''
''Yes''

Its like a boards version of Vin Browne.

Mr. CooL ICE · 27-05-2014 03:14PM

RobertKK wrote: »

1 in 3,300 women who molest children versus 1 in 20 men who sexually abuse children.

1 in 20 seems rather high. Have you got a source for this?

Nodin · 27-05-2014 03:14PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, Lesbian only would be far safer from a statistics point of view: 1 in 3,300 women who molest children versus 1 in 20 men who sexually abuse children.

Biological parents in most cases is the best option.

So you've nothing against Gay (lesbian) marriage and Gay(lesbian) adoption?

shruikan2553 · 27-05-2014 03:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, Lesbian only would be far safer from a statistics point of view: 1 in 3,300 women who molest children versus 1 in 20 men who sexually abuse children.

Biological parents in most cases is the best option.

So the best option is to put the child at risk of being near a man?

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 03:24PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You want sexual orientation discrimination to prevent sexual orientation discrimination?

Whaaaa??

The state plans on changing adoption laws before the referendum.

When the changes are made, a same sex couple whether homosexual or heterosexual can marry and jointly apply to adopt.

I know some would have issues with putting child protection as the most important issue.
The changes will make it easier to adopt as the fear of namecalling like such a person is homophobic as they turned down the application for adoption, will make it more likely for the adoption to happen.
All one needs is a good record and like any couple, just put on a good show for the adoption agency.

Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Comments