Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

LordChessington wrote: »

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

People disagreed paedophiles of the same sex irrespective of sexual orientation could marry for abuse purposes.
Men are far more likely to be abusers and law changes for joint adoption combined with marriage is great news for abusers who don't care about what they will be doing to genuine homosexuals.

RobertKK wrote: »

Men are far more likely to be abusers and law changes for joint adoption combined with marriage is great news for abusers who don't care about what they will be doing to genuine homosexuals.

Muise... wrote: »

RobertKK has added a case of adoption for the purposes of abuse to same sex marriage, and instead of NaN, has come up with a piece of twisting so absurd that poor old logic is threatening to commit suicide.

Suicide should not be trivialised.

Robert go back through this thread and re read all of your posts. You insist that you are not homophobic but please enlighten me as to what other conclusion can be drawn from the utter rubbish and drivel that you have posted as an argument against equal marriage?

So far as I can extract from the thread, you believe that equal marriage will result in heterosexual male paedophiles marrying each other for purposes of abuse and heterosexual couples marrying someone of the same gender for citizenship purposes? And these are good, solid arguments against equal marriage?

I am actually lost for words and that dosn't happen often. I am not even sure if you should be taken seriously or are actually a normal person having fun winding us up with outlandishly ridiculous posts?

RobertKK wrote: »

People disagreed paedophiles of the same sex irrespective of sexual orientation could marry for abuse purposes.
Men are far more likely to be abusers and law changes for joint adoption combined with marriage is great news for abusers who don't care about what they will be doing to genuine homosexuals.

I've been following your posts on this thread with a mixture of WTF and :rolleyes:

Male relatives are statistically more likely to be abusers. That is a documented fact. Some child abusers do organise, but they don't do it in the way you are suggesting. The notion that two paedophiles would marry and go through the adoption procedure to gain access to some kind of pet victim is frankly ludicrous. Talk about delayed gratification....

Just to be clear, are you arguing the point just for the sake of arguing the point? Or do you actually believe the drivel you've been spouting on this thread? There's a world of difference, by the way, between 'holding a different opinion' and 'just being wrong'.

If you're going to keep digging, you'll need a bigger shovel.

And what the fcuk is a 'genuine homosexual'?!?

A "Genuine Homosexual" is one who would like to get married but knows that it's a bad idea as it will open the floodgates to all sorts of paedophiles who'll use SSM as a cover for their sick goings on. Therefore "Genuine Homosexuals" are quite content to live as second class citizens in order for this not to happen. These "Genuine Homosexuals" are kind, considerate and caring and like nothing better than being used as strawmen for those who wish to have their homophobic bigotry enshrined in law.

RobertKK wrote: »

Oh please, the media is gay obsessed, it is literally pushed down our throats

Oooh, matron!

RobertKK wrote: »

People disagreed paedophiles of the same sex irrespective of sexual orientation could marry for abuse purposes.
Men are far more likely to be abusers and law changes for joint adoption combined with marriage is great news for abusers who don't care about what they will be doing to genuine homosexuals.

If we are denying people things based on fear of what others might do based on a couple of isolated cases, then I think we should probably ban all cars, there are plenty of documented cases of people misusing them and hurting others. Probably have to do away with sharp knives also, sure they are pretty useful for cooking, but I'm certain I could find a couple of stories about people being stabbed with them. Computers as well, plenty of cases of people misusing them.

Honestly I'm not sure what we are going to have left after we get rid of anything that can be misused to hurt someone, but at least we will be safe in the knowledge that your argument isn't completely nonsensical.

endacl wrote: »

I've been following your posts on this thread with a mixture of WTF and :rolleyes:

Male relatives are statistically more likely to be abusers. That is a documented fact. Some child abusers do organise, but they don't do it in the way you are suggesting. The notion that two paedophiles would marry and go through the adoption procedure to gain access to some kind of pet victim is frankly ludicrous. Talk about delayed gratification....

Just to be clear, are you arguing the point just for the sake of arguing the point? Or do you actually believe the drivel you've been spouting on this thread? There's a world of difference, by the way, between 'holding a different opinion' and 'just being wrong'.

If you're going to keep digging, you'll need a bigger shovel.

And what the fcuk is a 'genuine homosexual'?!?

So child abusers didn't spend years in seminarians before they became priests, where they had the trust of society at that time which aided the abuse? It took seven years to become a priest and yet you disregard it with "Talk about delayed gratification...."
If you think paedophiles are not conniving and scheming, well you live in a fairly simple world, blind to reality.

I am not digging, I just see people who are naive when it comes to what paedophiles will do, they don't care if they use the priesthood, homosexuals, boy scouts, swimming, teachers, youth workers or any other area that can be used for access to minors.

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not digging, I just see people who are naive when it comes to what paedophiles will do, they don't care if they use the priesthood, homosexuals, boy scouts, swimming, teachers, youth workers or any other area that can be used for access to minors.

So would you condone banning priests, boy scouts, swimming, teachers and youth workers to combat this threat?

Skylinehead wrote: »

So would you condone banning priests, boy scouts, swimming, teachers and youth workers to combat this threat?

In the priesthood to protect children from abusers and to deter abusers, plus to prevent false accusations, a priest is no longer allowed under church child protection rules to be alone with a child.
I don't know what child protection policies the other groups have. It was in a report the church has higher child protection standards now than the state.
If one is a child abuser now, they would not be joining the church as an option for abuse purposes.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Nobody is naive about what pedofiles will do. Its just your argument for why there shouldn't be same sex marriage gets destroyed by using the logic elsewhere. You have proved yourself that if we really worried about pedofiles then the best couple is 2 women. Pedofiles can use cars to kidnap children. Should we ban those too?

There is a difference between cars and giving a paedophile with no record of abuse, a child to look after.

My problem is child protection standards are very low - which is good for no one, and the child should come first in this equation.

Yes two women in the case of same sex adoption is by far a much safer option, but the state cannot have sex discrimination so they will inevitably put children in harm's way, which wouldn't be the first time as with the industrial schools.

Robert. You're throwing up the priests as a smokescreen. The reason people have an issue with your posts on this thread is that you equated homosexuality with child abuse. With the exception of 'genuine homosexuals', of course... (?!?). And then went into a dance of goalpost shifting in order to avoid responding to challenges to this assertation.

As I see it, you really only have two options. Either stand over and defend your ridiculous, and frankly insulting, assertion, or admit you were wrong to have made it in the first place.