Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 07:22PM

Muise... wrote: »

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.

That would be you, it is strange that some people seem to think everyone marries for reasons of love.
That is not reality.

Muise... · 27-05-2014 07:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That would be you, it is strange that some people seem to think everyone marries for reasons of love.
That is not reality.

Oooh, you've taken another turn - where will this red herring lead?

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 07:24PM

Knasher wrote: »

No, he specifically mentioned civil marraige. Obviously religious marriage is beyond reproach, after all how could anything blessed by the church be bad......

Humanists and similar too not just religious. You would have same sex marriage then and the state wouldn't be defining what a marriage is, which isn't their job.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 07:26PM

Muise... wrote: »

Oooh, you've taken another turn - where will this red herring lead?

You are not reading my posts properly, not another turn , just used simpler English for you.

Kiwi in IE · 27-05-2014 07:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, I would do away with civil marriage.

Knasher wrote: »

No, he specifically mentioned civil marraige. Obviously religious marriage is beyond reproach, after all how could anything blessed by the church be bad......

Yes but all marriage is civil marriage. If a religious couple only complete the church part without completing the civil marriage requirements, then it is not legally binding and the couple are not legally married. Therefore doing away with civil marriage is doing away with marriage altogether because without the civil part a marriage would have no legal standing.

Knasher · 27-05-2014 07:29PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Humanists and similar too not just religious. You would have same sex marriage then and the state wouldn't be defining what a marriage is, which isn't their job.

If the state doesn't define marriage, and humanists are allowed to preform marriages, then I can absolutely guarantee that they will be preforming same sex marriages. Who is to stop them?

The reason the state defines marriage is because it offers tax benefits to those that are married. It can't do that without either enshrining discrimination (of a different sort, by deciding which groups can perform marriages, and banning anyone who isn't part of that group regardless of their orientation) or by doing away with any legal benefits to married couples, which to bring it back on topic, I'm guessing would be a complete anathema to Theresa Heaney.

Kiwi in IE · 27-05-2014 07:30PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Humanists and similar too not just religious. You would have same sex marriage then and the state wouldn't be defining what a marriage is, which isn't their job.

I suppose it depends whether you want married couples to have specific legal rights or not. If not, then I guess I could go and ask my next door neighbour to preform a marriage ceremony and we could consider ourselves married.

Muise... · 27-05-2014 07:34PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I suppose it depends whether you want married couples to have specific legal rights or not. If not, then I guess I could go and ask my next door neighbour to preform a marriage ceremony and we could consider ourselves married.

and then you can adopt children to rape!

Glad you're over here with us if this is one of your conservative MPs. Well done, NZ!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfSGOK5jC9I

Reformed Character · 27-05-2014 08:05PM

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.

Any reading of your posts shows them to be hate filled homophobic bile.

PopePalpatine · 27-05-2014 08:39PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

Any reading of your posts shows them to be hate filled homophobic bile.

He's like Alive! on crack.

Nodin · 27-05-2014 08:42PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Humanists and similar too not just religious. You would have same sex marriage then and the state wouldn't be defining what a marriage is, which isn't their job.

I can say without doubt it sure as fuck isn't the churches either.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 10:02PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

Any reading of your posts shows them to be hate filled homophobic bile.

You should have gone to spec savers if that is what you and others deduced from it.

Nodin wrote: »

I can say without doubt it sure as fuck isn't the churches either.

No, it will be society. But then some here argued it is not for society to decide...

Nodin · 27-05-2014 10:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

...............

No, it will be society. But then some here argued it is not for society to decide...

If society decided to re-join church and state, with a strict Calvinist church at the helm, would you think it fair and just that you be subjected to it and its restrictions?

And please be as good as to answer this in the next few posts, as you know I'll only keep going till I get one.

RobertKK · 27-05-2014 10:17PM

Nodin wrote: »

If society decided to re-join church and state, with a strict Calvinist church at the helm, would you think it fair and just that you be subjected to it and its restrictions?

And please be as good as to answer this in the next few posts, as you know I'll only keep going till I get one.

I believe in freedom of religion which is a human right. The freedom of religion also means one can have no religion. If I was a Calvinist I would vote with my conscience on an issue, as it would be what I believe is the best. Whatever the majority vote is what society wants.

This state is not run by the Catholic church, it is run by blueshirts in power with some former communist lovers. Both like a couple who want to separate but can't afford to.

Sorry I have not answered everything, I have been working and only have so much time, still working so you may be waiting for a reply, if you reply to this, just letting you know

TwoShedsJackson · 27-05-2014 10:19PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry I have not answered everything...

Understatement of the thread right there.

Nodin · 27-05-2014 10:20PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I believe in freedom of religion which is a human right. The freedom of religion also means one can have no religion. If I was a Calvinist I would vote with my conscience on an issue, as it would be what I believe is the best. Whatever the majority vote is what society wants.
............

..so you would be willing to renounce your religion because a majority of "society" had voted that there would only be a single state religion?

stmol32 · 27-05-2014 10:44PM

Nearly 500 post into this thread and still no-one has offered an actual definitive solution to the problem of gay marriage.

Kiwi in IE · 27-05-2014 10:49PM

stmol32 wrote: »

Nearly 500 post into this thread and still no-one has offered an actual definitive solution to the problem of gay marriage.

Legalise it immediately? Never mind political bollocks and archaic constitutions!

P_1 · 27-05-2014 10:51PM

stmol32 wrote: »

Nearly 500 post into this thread and still no-one has offered an actual definitive solution to the problem of gay marriage.

Well to be fair to a lot of people the problem is simply that it's not allowed, there's a fairly simple solution to that one. To some others they either (a) can't get their head around why some people want to have it or (b) find that it goes against their religion and want to insist that everyone else want's to follow that no matter what their opinion is on the matter

Corkfeen · 27-05-2014 11:02PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry I have not answered everything, I have been working and only have so much time, still working so you may be waiting for a reply, if you reply to this, just letting you know

Let's be realistic, you're intentionally dodging questions and points..... Some stuff was posted days ago and you never addressed it because it shows your points up or you simply aren't capable of answering them.

Skylinehead · 27-05-2014 11:08PM

stmol32 wrote: »

Nearly 500 post into this thread and still no-one has offered an actual definitive solution to the problem of gay marriage.

Legalise it, problem solved.

That was easy.

myshirt · 27-05-2014 11:38PM

I haven't read the entire thread, it was too long. But I will say this:

May God have mercy on your souls

Skylinehead · 28-05-2014 12:01AM

myshirt wrote: »

I haven't read the entire thread, it was too long. But I will say this:

May God have mercy on your souls

Crann na Beatha · 28-05-2014 12:42AM

This post has been deleted.

Kiwi in IE · 28-05-2014 09:30AM

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 missed this gem yesterday due to the overwhelming amount of other ridiculous statements you made!

This is an argument against gay marriage? Heterosexual people might marry people of the same gender for citizenship purposes? Well I hate to break it to you Robert, but right now heterosexual (and gay) people can marry someone of the opposite gender for citizenship purposes of they wish. I am not sure how the incidence of this is likely to increase when equal marriage is legal? Can you explain?

Reformed Character · 28-05-2014 10:02AM

stmol32 wrote: »

Nearly 500 post into this thread and still no-one has offered an actual definitive solution to the problem of gay marriage.

That's because there is no problem with Gay marriage other than it currently denied to them.
That will, I am happy to say, be changing very soon.

Daith · 28-05-2014 10:18AM

stmol32 wrote: »

Nearly 500 post into this thread and still no-one has offered an actual definitive solution to the problem of gay marriage.

This thread, the last thread, the thread before that and so on.

No one here ever has.

Mr. CooL ICE · 28-05-2014 10:33AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I missed this gem yesterday due to the overwhelming amount of other ridiculous statements you made!

This is an argument against gay marriage? Heterosexual people might marry people of the same gender for citizenship purposes? Well I hate to break it to you Robert, but right now heterosexual (and gay) people can marry someone of the opposite gender for citizenship purposes of they wish. I am not sure how the incidence of this is likely to increase when equal marriage is legal? Can you explain?

He probably watched Chuck & Larry one too many times. Adam Sandler movies can make people do and say crazy things

RobertKK · 28-05-2014 10:33AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I missed this gem yesterday due to the overwhelming amount of other ridiculous statements you made!

This is an argument against gay marriage? Heterosexual people might marry people of the same gender for citizenship purposes? Well I hate to break it to you Robert, but right now heterosexual (and gay) people can marry someone of the opposite gender for citizenship purposes of they wish. I am not sure how the incidence of this is likely to increase when equal marriage is legal? Can you explain?

People were arguing paedophiles of whatever sexual orientation wouldn't abuse same sex marriage for abuse purposes.
The argument was marriage was for love, as if that was the only reason for marriage.
I showed with marriage for citizenship that this is not always the case and people do abuse opposite sex marriage for other purposes, this also includes for abuse purposes as seen recently how a woman with a daughter married this man and he abused her daughter.
Thank you for agreeing, that people do marry for purposes other than love.

Mr. CooL ICE · 28-05-2014 10:41AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Thank you for agreeing, that people do marry for purposes other than love.

Wrong and wrong. Nobody agreed with you and nobody disputed that people marry for reasons other than love.

Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Comments