Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Nodin wrote: »

So you expect gay people who want to marry to abide by the vote of a majority, but would refuse to do so yourself.

That's hypocrisy, Robert.

There is no hypocrisy.

I find a lot of people are too obsessed with the state, you don't need the state to recognise your love, we don't have a state religion, yet we have state/civil marriage.
You are not comparing something alike.

RobertKK wrote: »

There is no hypocrisy.

I find a lot of people are too obsessed with the state, you don't need the state to recognise your love, we don't have a state religion, yet we have state/civil marriage.
You are not comparing something alike.

There go the goalposts again...

RobertKK wrote: »

There is no hypocrisy.

I find a lot of people are too obsessed with the state, you don't need the state to recognise your love, we don't have a state religion, yet we have state/civil marriage.
You are not comparing something alike.

I find the state is too obsessed with things that are none of its damn business, such as where some people like to put their mickeys, and where other people like yet other people to put their mickeys. All "state/civil" marriage should be done away with, regardless of gender. That'd sort it. :cool:

endacl wrote: »

There go the goalposts again...

Anyone get the number of that bulldozer?? :pac::pac::pac:

endacl wrote: »

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.

Priests are not a smokescreen, it is all, male, they were highly respected and trusted in society to a degree that was dangerous.
We see it in this thread how you can't say anything against same sex marriage and how it could be used like the priesthood. The same too much trust exists, it is dismissed, oh you can't say that about a priest, that is what was said in the past, one wouldn't be believed, now the attitude exists for same sex marriage with joint adoption.
I still go to church, I see what had to be done to protect children, I saw how abusers used the church and then how in the church it was covered up because it was so embarrassing.
The next big cover up is under way, and it will be good homosexuals getting blamed like good priests were by all being branded with the bad people who used them.
We saw how the BBC covered it up, the swimming coaching scandal in this country was covered up.
Abuse has been covered up time and time again. Raise concerns in men adopting children and it is homophobic and bigotry - this is great news for abusers, people unwittingly are helping them.
It is like drug users not accepting they are responsible for drugs gangs killing one another.


Genuine homosexuals are like genuine priests, people who are what they are not people using them for other activities.

Reformed Character wrote: »

So you don't believe in spousal rights, inheritance rights, and other rights and indeed obligations stemming from marriage?

One should be able to do that with a solicitor, the state would just need to change the laws.

RobertKK wrote: »

One should be able to do that with a registrar, the state would just need to change the laws to allow men to marry men, and women to marry women.

Finally!

Good man Robert.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Just out of interest Robert, since you are clearly very concerned about men being the primary carers for children when there are no wimmin about, if a heterosexual couple adopt a child, or have a biological child, and then the woman dies, do you think the child or children should be removed from the father because men are more likely to abuse children?

The man may be a paedophile who only agreed to adopt or biologically father the children so he could abuse them no?

Can you see yet how 'concern for children' isn't really working to cover the real motivation behind your argument?

One should have concern for children or do you think that is wrong too?

Your arguments are like those one sees in abortion debates where one ignore most abortions are simply to kill the unborn life as they don't want it, but specific cases like rape and incest are used for the argument.
I have stated the biological parent is best of all. With adoption laws the child will not be removed unless something does show up and for most abuse cases it goes hidden for a long time.

It is disgusting how you dismiss child safety with "Can you see yet how 'concern for children' isn't really working to cover the real motivation behind your argument?"
It is people who turn a blind eye that allows abuse to happen whether unintentionally or intentionally.

RobertKK wrote: »

One should have concern for children or do you think that is wrong too?

I, for one, find your concern for children argument completely disingenuous. Fact of the matter is that the studies have shown that the children who grow up in state care have worse outcomes than those that are adopted. And while you clearly prefer to pretend we live in a world where the biological parent is always the best option, the rest of us deal with the reality where sometimes, for whatever reason the biological parents aren't an option and when that happens their children need to be taken into care. There will always be more kids looking for parents to adopt, than there are people willing to adopt, and what studies there are have shown no difference in outcomes from those that grow up with homosexual parents and those with heterosexual parents. If you really were concerned for the children, these things would matter to you, but much like the religious adoption agencies who would prefer to abandon the children before abandoning their bigotry, their concern for children is just a convenient smoke screen to hide behind.

Knasher wrote: »

I, for one, find your concern for children argument completely disingenuous. Fact of the matter is that the studies have shown that the children who grow up in state care have worse outcomes than those that are adopted. And while you clearly prefer to pretend we live in a world where the biological parent is always the best option, the rest of us deal with the reality where sometimes, for whatever reason the biological parents aren't an option and when that happens their children need to be taken into care. There will always be more kids looking for parents to adopt, than there are people willing to adopt, and what studies there are have shown no difference in outcomes from those that grow up with homosexual parents and those with heterosexual parents. If you really were concerned for the children, these things would matter to you, but much like the religious adoption agencies who would prefer to abandon the children before abandoning their bigotry, their concern for children is just a convenient smoke screen to hide behind.

I said before biological parent was the best first option, obviously not in every case. That is why I use the word 'option'.
You will only bring harm to homosexuals if you think it is a smokescreen.
It will be gay people like priests getting labelled with child abuse, yesterday it was said only one case, even though I had posted two cases, well here is another, two men married and adopted nine boys and :
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010

But of course my concern is just a cover or a smokescreen :rolleyes:

RobertKK wrote: »

One should have concern for children or do you think that is wrong too?

There is a difference between genuine concern for children and using 'concern for children' as a smokescreen for homophobia. I have no more concern for children with gay parents than I do for children with heterosexual parents. And implying a connection between equal marriage and an increase in child abuse is blatant homophobia.

RobertKK wrote: »

Your arguments are like those one sees in abortion debates where one ignore most abortions are simply to kill the unborn life as they don't want it, but specific cases like rape and incest are used for the argument.

I don't quite know what this rant has to do with anything, but just for the record I am in favour of abortion on demand up to a certain time and don't think the woman should be required to provide a reason at all.

RobertKK wrote: »

I have stated the biological parent is best of all. With adoption laws the child will not be removed unless something does show up and for most abuse cases it goes hidden for a long time.

What about when the biological parents abuse the child? Or allow someone into the home who abuses the child and fails to protect them? Should biological parents be banned too?

RobertKK wrote: »

It is disgusting how you dismiss child safety with "Can you see yet how 'concern for children' isn't really working to cover the real motivation behind your argument?"

What is actually disgusting is that you are using the plight of abused children as an excuse to vent your homophobic views.

RobertKK wrote: »

Concern for children is homophobic.....

Goalposts to king's bishop five...

RobertKK wrote: »

Concern for children is homophobic.....

No your views are.

Corkfeen wrote: »

It clearly is a smokescreen. Straight couples abuse children but you don't give a **** about it. The APA conclude there's no proof of a risk. But I assume you'll ignore this research too because you've ignored every single post I've made on the subject. It's good to see intellectual dishonesty is alive and well.

They wouldn't have much research to go on.