Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Seems like an awful lot of hassle for two straight men to get married, so they can maybe adopt (because being married isn't the only requirement) so they can abuse the child. Seems like an easier option just to, you know, have your own kids???? Or get a sex change and adopt. But then would you be a child molester?

Help Robert.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why can't a heterosexual man married to a woman do the same thing?

BECAUSE THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!

Not that he's implying distinctly shady characteristics to gay male couples...no....

Nodin wrote: »

Not only that, but people don't have good sex before marriage, because Jesus isn't watching and helping. Once the magic ceremony is completed, the pleasure is scientifically anecdote to be 100%, as you know the Lord is giving you the thumbs up. Not literally of course. Nobody wants to talk about this in the liberal media though.

Thumbs up where now? :eek: Jesus!

CramCycle wrote: »

I used to fall over all the time until I got married, cumulative anecdotal evidence, one more example and we have the basis for a website that can give people the chance to misrepresent the truth and quote it as fact without any peer review or justification of the claims we make.

Next to get a list of volunteers for our study who had dodgy knees in the past and then either were operated on or treated by a Physio just before or close to the time of their wedding.

I'm only after seein you're the mod of cycling. Must have been terrible to be an adult goin round with the stabilisers on the bike.

RobertKK wrote: »

What a horrible post.

We hear people saying paedophile priests, does that mean all priests are paedophiles.
You jump to conclusions so to you can throw a hissy fit.

This really is like playing chess with a bag of frogs, isn't it?

People say paedophile priests about paedophile priests. It does not mean all priests are paedophiles; if it did we would close all the seminaries in case more of them emerge, which is what you are trying to do with stopping gay marriage -on the basis of one instance, and against all reason, vs many many institutionalised instances in the church.

RobertKK wrote: »

Oh please, we have seen on this very forum people making out all priests are peadophiles by making comments about priests and children, yet the people who have a problem with what I posted then have a problem when they think and wrongly think I have put homosexuals and paedophiles in the one bracket, even though I posted two heterosexual men could marry for child abuse purposes,
Then people who either can't read, are blind or just want to name call choose to post I put homosexuals and paedophiles in the one bracket.
That is what is disgusting and then people who thank a post that contains such lies, which says more about them than it does I.

There has been more than one instance within same sex couples.

Tell us how you didn't put homosexuals and paedophiles in the same bracket by asserting that allowing gay marriage would facilitate adoption by same sex couples, and couples pretending to be same sex, for the purposes of child sex abuse?

RobertKK wrote: »

So the people shouldn't be able to decide what kind of society they want?

We must leave it to politicians to decide?

I think it is immature to be name calling - like bigot, homophobe as it is a way to try and shut down debate. There will be a section of the population against gay marriage but will not speak out because of this. people will tell lies to pollsters so not to be judged by someone who may be liberal and they know if liberal how they will be thinking. People told pollsters they supported the children's referendum over 80% support, after the vote it was 53%.
I don't think 'my side' is waning. People will act to avoid being called names, the intimidation from name calling is not there when one casts their ballot.

Let's modify your argument. I hate the way the government is allowing interracial marriage without allowing the people to decide. Why should the government support rights of others when society mightn't agree. And people call me a racist to silence my opinion!

I realise that we are required to have a referendum because our constitution requires it. I also have zero respect for a person who votes to restrict the rights of another for no reason.

golfball37 wrote: »

There is no liberal bias here as being a liberal means being tolerant of an opposing view.

Most posters on here do not display that trait when it comes to respecting somebody with a conservative view, so they are not liberals imo.

There's no reason to respect idiotic views. Where did you get this absurd concept from?

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...

The simple fact is,this is the bull**** argument you're depending on to prevent same sex marriage.

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.

So only women should be allowed to raise children full stop.

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.

Source?

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't see the need for same sex marriage.

From an adoption point of view, lesbian adoptions are a far safer option, but the best will always be a man and woman as each of the sexes have different qualities.

This is where you really show your true colour. All research points to the fact that gender has no impact upon one's parenting ability. Fact! Therefore you should only support lesbian couples for adoption. But no,you still attempt to find a reason not to and choose to run a risk factor that the male may abuse children.

Ergo we can conclude you are latching onto any argument you can.

Now here's some facts for you.

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. More recently, in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's resignation from the US House of Representatives in 2006, antigay activists and their supporters seized on the scandal to revive this canard.

....

the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.

...
Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

So really you're just using a slightly modified argument that the right have used in the US already. You can't provide anything statistical to back it up. You'll use random anecdotes that could also be used against adoption by straight couples.

Citing a Russian law isn't exactly proof of anything. You're referring to a state that has claimed to have a cure for homosexuality,anti-gay laws and regularly has citizens beaten up for their sexuality with no punishment from the state. Are you going to cite Uganda next?

'I'm against marriage equality because straight men might marry each other to have sex with children.' - The election poster I hope to see in the future.

RobertKK wrote: »

You can trivialise child abuse if you want but men regardless of sexual orientation pose a greater risk to children than two women would.
Oh yeah people ignored that to call me homophobic, because they want to stick their heads in the sand and the facts doesn't suit.

You have selectively ignored points throughout this topic. Everything you say,be it on cervical cancer vaccines or the pill filling the rivers with oestrogen doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Instead of addressing the numerous issues with your opinion,you remain adamant that you're right and that we're all treating you badly. Poor Robert!

RobertKK wrote: »

Since when did same sex marriage that some advocate stop heterosexual people of the same sex from marrying?
Like no one would use marriage for things other than love, would they? Like gaining citizen for example..

I've tried to follow this a few times now, Robert, but I can only conclude that your snake of an argument has gotten its head stuck up its own hole.