Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

1…2122242627…69

Comments

  • #692
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Wrong.

    Your argument is wrong if you think it is anti-homosexual. Decades ago one might have said someone like me was anti-clergy if I said peadophiles were entering the priesthood for easy access to children due to the trust and respect a priest has.
    How insane it would be that someone would use that argument about the clergy who are holy people.

    Lets all be blind here like we were in the past...



    What basis do you have for these concerns Robert?


  • #693
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Wrong.

    Your argument is wrong if you think it is anti-homosexual. Decades ago one might have said someone like me was anti-clergy if I said peadophiles were entering the priesthood for easy access to children due to the trust and respect a priest has.
    How insane it would be that someone would use that argument about the clergy who are holy people.

    Lets all be blind here like we were in the past...

    Anyone can adopt without a partner. Why are people waiting for SSM to adopt children to abuse?


  • #694
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Wrong.

    Your argument is wrong if you think it is anti-homosexual. Decades ago one might have said someone like me was anti-clergy if I said peadophiles were entering the priesthood for easy access to children due to the trust and respect a priest has.
    How insane it would be that someone would use that argument about the clergy who are holy people.

    Lets all be blind here like we were in the past...


    All of this has nothing to do with the upcoming SSM Referendum


  • #695
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,729 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Sauve wrote: »
    Then again, I'm sure there are many who are all for it in public, but it could be a whole different story in the privacy of a polling booth...

    I'd expect to see a metric fcukton of these people crawling out of their caves on the day.


  • #696
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Wrong.

    Your argument is wrong if you think it is anti-homosexual. Decades ago one might have said someone like me was anti-clergy if I said peadophiles were entering the priesthood for easy access to children due to the trust and respect a priest has.
    How insane it would be that someone would use that argument about the clergy who are holy people.

    Lets all be blind here like we were in the past...

    So using your SSM argument you would like a ban on Priests?

    Or a ban on religion altogether? (using your ban on civil marriage argument)


    Interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Wrong.

    Your argument is wrong if you think it is anti-homosexual. Decades ago one might have said someone like me was anti-clergy if I said peadophiles were entering the priesthood for easy access to children due to the trust and respect a priest has.
    How insane it would be that someone would use that argument about the clergy who are holy people.

    Lets all be blind here like we were in the past...

    A more accurate analogy would be if there were a movement to allow gay men into the priesthood and one of your objections would be that paedophiles would take advantage of it. In other words, you are strongly implying that you see some kind of link between gay men and paedophilia, not that you're a fúcking homophobe or anything though, right?
    denhaagenite wrote: »
    Look folks, while I don't agree with RobertKK's views, he is voting no and is entitled to exercise his civil liberties in doing so- he is not campaigning for the "No" side. He doesn't agree with any civil marriage as he outlined a few pages back so I don't see how anyone can act incredulous at his opposition to SSM, which would be civil marriage. Fair enough, his comment re: hetero paedos adopting was a tangent of epic proportions but I think if you keep pushing someone who has a strong belief to provide more and more reasons as to why they disagree, that's probably what's going to happen.

    He has his opinions, you have yours. Nobody needs to ram anything down anyone's throat. I think he has a prejudice (he is RC so he has to have) but I wouldn't go so far as to say he is homophobic.

    People are discussing his opinions with him on a discussion board. People were pushing him to clarify his nonsense, not provide more of it, which is how we got from 'I guess you liberals think nature is homophobic, huh?' to 'I'm not saying gay men are paedos but....'


  • #698
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    SW wrote: »
    :confused:

    same-sex = two people of the same sex, this doesn't have to mean homosexual. I haven't said anything you didn't post. So the point still stands.

    It's just anti-homosexual scaremongering. You're suggesting that two men/women would marry for the sole purpose of molesting children. Do you not see how insane an argument that is to not allow same-sex marriage?

    And very offensive too... the implied suggestion is that all gay men are paedophiles.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #699
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    denhaagenite wrote: »
    but I wouldn't go so far as to say he is homophobic.

    It's staggering that you think that someone who repeatedly claims that marriage equality will lead to paedophiles marrying so they can adopt and abuse children isn't homophobic. How far does someone have to go before you'd consider them homophobic, I wonder?


  • #700
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    denhaagenite wrote: »
    He has his opinions, you have yours. Nobody needs to ram anything down anyone's throat.

    In fairness, I think if you were the victim of gross inequality you'd probably be doing the same. Black people did it during the civil rights movement, women did it during the suffrage movement and gay people did it during the Stonewall riots. Sometimes you have to shove your opinion down others peoples throats if you want to achieve any meaningful change to the status quo, as blunt and unpalatable as that sounds.

    This isn't just about having an opinion on something like what colour to paint your kitchen, this is about trying to achieve equality before the law with your fellow humans.


  • #701
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    denhaagenite wrote: »
    Look folks, while I don't agree with RobertKK's views, he is voting no and is entitled to exercise his civil liberties in doing so- he is not campaigning for the "No" side. He doesn't agree with any civil marriage as he outlined a few pages back so I don't see how anyone can act incredulous at his opposition to SSM, which would be civil marriage. Fair enough, his comment re: hetero paedos adopting was a tangent of epic proportions but I think if you keep pushing someone who has a strong belief to provide more and more reasons as to why they disagree, that's probably what's going to happen.

    He has his opinions, you have yours. Nobody needs to ram anything down anyone's throat. I think he has a prejudice (he is RC so he has to have) but I wouldn't go so far as to say he is homophobic.

    Actually I think his opinions on men adopting are homophobic and mysandrist when taking to their fullest conclusion.

    Think about it. Seriously. He doesnt support marriage equality because paedophiles might abuse children. When pressed on it he admits he also means heterosexual men so not only is he implying all gay men are paedophiles he is also suggesting all prospective male adoptive parents are paedophiles.

    How anyone can try and minimise this opinion and suggest it's not homophobic is beyond me.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #702
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Links234 wrote: »
    It's staggering that you think that someone who repeatedly claims that marriage equality will lead to paedophiles marrying so they can adopt and abuse children isn't homophobic. How far does someone have to go before you'd consider them homophobic, I wonder?

    I am gobsmacked someone would really think such views are not homophobic.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #703
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Wrong.

    Your argument is wrong if you think it is anti-homosexual.
    not at all. You are saying that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because a child molester would marry a man to get access to children. I presume you also are opposed to heterosexual marriage for the same reason?
    Decades ago one might have said someone like me was anti-clergy if I said peadophiles were entering the priesthood for easy access to children due to the trust and respect a priest has.
    How insane it would be that someone would use that argument about the clergy who are holy people.
    No, to make that example equivalent to your argument against same-sex marriage, you would be suggesting no-one could become a priest because a child molester might join the priesthood to molest children.
    Lets all be blind here like we were in the past...
    no one is suggesting that but your same-sex couples = child molesters isn't exactly a mature and respectul perspective that LGBT deserve when you're discussing them. Show some empathy/humanity toward your fellow humans.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #704
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    An opinion is I dont like One Direction. If people started yelling and me and calling me names than that would be over the top. It is very different when I say I dont think they should be allowed in public and actively try to make that happen.


  • #705
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Actually I think his opinions on men adopting are homophobic and mysandrist when taking to their fullest conclusion.

    Think about it. Seriously. He doesnt support marriage equality because paedophiles might abuse children. When pressed on it he admits he also means heterosexual men so not only is he implying all gay men are paedophiles he is also suggesting all prospective male adoptive parents are paedophiles.

    How anyone can try and minimise this opinion and suggest it's not homophobic is beyond me.

    the word "homophobic" has been beaten to death already in this thread,including twice by your good self in this post.tell me,in your opinion is it possible for somebody to disapprove of gay marriage and not be "homophobic" also? if so then how?


  • #706
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    fran17 wrote: »
    the word "homophobic" has been beaten to death already in this thread,including twice by your good self in this post.tell me,in your opinion is it possible for somebody to disapprove of gay marriage and not be "homophobic" also? if so then how?

    Only if they actively support the removal of all civil marriage. Supporting the existence of differing marriage rules for people of differing sexual orientations is homophobic, regardless of the reasoning.


  • #707
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    fran17 wrote: »
    the word "homophobic" has been beaten to death already in this thread,including twice by your good self in this post.tell me,in your opinion is it possible for somebody to disapprove of gay marriage and not be "homophobic" also? if so then how?

    Would you consider it racist for somebody to disapprove of 2 black people marrying?


  • #708
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    eviltwin wrote: »
    What basis do you have for these concerns Robert?

    I was and still do go to church. I remember going to church during the height of the sex abuse scandals, it was hard, I kept going because I knew the priest saying mass was not an abuser, but it was still hard.
    I remember the feeling I had then when it all broke and how it was devastating. I truly realised then just how devious and how evil these people are, to the point it was covered up because it was so awful and beyond embarrassing.
    I saw how these people will target areas of weak child protection. The church was perfect - priests were the most trusted people in society, held in the highest of respect, were religious and one wouldn't believe you if an allegation was made. We know many parents didn't believe their children.
    With same sex couples with families we again have a perfect situation for history to repeat itself.
    Raise concerns and you will be branded as bigot or homophobe, it silences people as people don't want to be branded any of those. It happened with a case in England where a social worker said in court she didn't raise her concerns as she feared being viewed as homophobic. It was when photos of half naked children were discovered that the children were rescued. This kind of thing is ideal for a child abuser.
    The namecalling is great for the abuser, it silences people. We have a lot of namecalling already. The people using it are their own biggest enemy.
    No one wants to be branded as a bigot or homophobic, but the branding of people is the biggest weapon a paedophile has in this case.
    Like a priest could never abuse, if you make an allegation against a same sex couple the person making the allegation will be called homophobic if it is only based on suspicion.
    I am a believer in history repeating itself in different forms. I don't want homosexual people being viewed and looked at with suspicion as many a priest was during the height of the sex abuse scandals, because I know I did wonder about the good priest based on nothing.
    It is a terrible position for any group to find themselves under.
    I do feel the advantages that one might see with same sex marriage are outweighed by negatives that no one wants to discuss, because like in the past a priest was viewed as next to a saint, we know that it can all be a delusion and not the fault of the good people who went to be priests, but those under false pretenses.
    I don't want to see it happening again, with good people again being viewed with suspicion.
    I know it comes across badly as it denying what some see as a right but I don't want to be in the a position in decades to come if I am alive to say I warned about this.
    People may think I am silly but it is a genuine concern, and if I am right the victims will be those abused and same sex couples.
    I hope I am wrong but I have seen how paedophiles go after weak areas when it comes to children.


  • #709
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I was and still do go to church. I remember going to church during the height of the sex abuse scandals, it was hard, I kept going because I knew the priest saying mass was not an abuser, but it was still hard.
    I remember the feeling I had then when it all broke and how it was devastating. I truly realised then just how devious and how evil these people are, to the point it was covered up because it was so awful and beyond embarrassing.
    I saw how these people will target areas of weak child protection. The church was perfect - priests were the most trusted people in society, held in the highest of respect, were religious and one wouldn't believe you if an allegation was made. We know many parents didn't believe their children.
    With same sex couples with families we again have a perfect situation for history to repeat itself.
    Raise concerns and you will be branded as bigot or homophobe, it silences people as people don't want to be branded any of those. It happened with a case in England where a social worker said in court she didn't raise her concerns as she feared being viewed as homophobic. It was when photos of half naked children were discovered that the children were rescued. This kind of thing is ideal for a child abuser.
    The namecalling is great for the abuser, it silences people. We have a lot of namecalling already. The people using it are their own biggest enemy.
    No one wants to be branded as a bigot or homophobic, but the branding of people is the biggest weapon a paedophile has in this case.
    Like a priest could never abuse, if you make an allegation against a same sex couple the person making the allegation will be called homophobic if it is only based on suspicion.
    I am a believer in history repeating itself in different forms. I don't want homosexual people being viewed and looked at with suspicion as many a priest was during the height of the sex abuse scandals, because I know I did wonder about the good priest based on nothing.
    It is a terrible position for any group to find themselves under.
    I do feel the advantages that one might see with same sex marriage are outweighed by negatives that no one wants to discuss, because like in the past a priest was viewed as next to a saint, we know that it can all be a delusion and not the fault of the good people who went to be priests, but those under false pretenses.
    I don't want to see it happening again, with good people again being viewed with suspicion.
    I know it comes across badly as it denying what some see as a right but I don't want to be in the a position in decades to come if I am alive to say I warned about this.
    People may think I am silly but it is a genuine concern, and if I am right the victims will those abused and same sex couples.
    I hope I am wrong but I have seen how paedophiles go after weak areas when it comes to children.

    So you want to also ban priests?


  • #710
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I was and still do go to church. I remember going to church during the height of the sex abuse scandals, it was hard, I kept going because I knew the priest saying mass was not an abuser, but it was still hard.
    I remember the feeling I had then when it all broke and how it was devastating. I truly realised then just how devious and how evil these people are, to the point it was covered up because it was so awful and beyond embarrassing.
    I saw how these people will target areas of weak child protection. The church was perfect - priests were the most trusted people in society, held in the highest of respect, were religious and one wouldn't believe you if an allegation was made. We know many parents didn't believe their children.
    With same sex couples with families we again have a perfect situation for history to repeat itself.
    Raise concerns and you will be branded as bigot or homophobe, it silences people as people don't want to be branded any of those. It happened with a case in England where a social worker said in court she didn't raise her concerns as she feared being viewed as homophobic. It was when photos of half naked children were discovered that the children were rescued. This kind of thing is ideal for a child abuser.
    The namecalling is great for the abuser, it silences people. We have a lot of namecalling already. The people using it are their own biggest enemy.
    No one wants to be branded as a bigot or homophobic, but the branding of people is the biggest weapon a paedophile has in this case.
    Like a priest could never abuse, if you make an allegation against a same sex couple the person making the allegation will be called homophobic if it is only based on suspicion.
    I am a believer in history repeating itself in different forms. I don't want homosexual people being viewed and looked at with suspicion as many a priest was during the height of the sex abuse scandals, because I know I did wonder about the good priest based on nothing.
    It is a terrible position for any group to find themselves under.
    I do feel the advantages that one might see with same sex marriage are outweighed by negatives that no one wants to discuss, because like in the past a priest was viewed as next to a saint, we know that it can all be a delusion and not the fault of the good people who went to be priests, but those under false pretenses.
    I don't want to see it happening again, with good people again being viewed with suspicion.
    I know it comes across badly as it denying what some see as a right but I don't want to be in the a position in decades to come if I am alive to say I warned about this.
    People may think I am silly but it is a genuine concern, and if I am right the victims will those abused and same sex couples.
    I hope I am wrong but I have seen how paedophiles go after weak areas when it comes to children.

    You seem to keep missing my question. Why are paedophiles not currently adopting children and did you know that 2 men will be able to adopt a child even if there was a 100% no vote for SSM?


  • #711
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    So you want to also ban priests?

    And single male fathers it seems.


  • Advertisement
  • #712
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    Only if they actively support the removal of all civil marriage. Supporting the existence of differing marriage rules for people of differing sexual orientations is homophobic, regardless of the reasoning.

    so anybody who will vote against this referendum,not knowing them or there reasons why there voting in such a way,will be "homophobic" in your view?


  • #713
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    fran17 wrote: »
    the word "homophobic" has been beaten to death already in this thread,including twice by your good self in this post.tell me,in your opinion is it possible for somebody to disapprove of gay marriage and not be "homophobic" also? if so then how?
    We're specifically discussing the suggestion that marriage equality will lead to paedophiles marrying to abuse children. That is the homophobia I am referring to.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #714
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    fran17 wrote: »
    so anybody who will vote against this referendum,not knowing them or there reasons why there voting in such a way,will be "homophobic" in your view?

    Are these people voting no because they are against treating gay people as equal to straight people?


  • #715
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    fran17 wrote: »
    so anybody who will vote against this referendum,not knowing them or there reasons why there voting in such a way,will be "homophobic" in your view?

    Not only in my view, it's an objective fact. Shockingly enough, the act of supporting active discrimination is discriminatory, ergo homophobic in this case. :eek:


  • #716
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Trying to denying the LGBT community equal rights by bringing up a "BUT THE PAEDOS JOE!" argument is quite possibly the ****tiest cover up for homophobia I've ever heard.


    I'd have a lot more respect for someone that simply was honest as to why they are voting no and say "because the Bible said so".


  • #717
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Would you consider it racist for somebody to disapprove of 2 black people marrying?

    black people:confused:


  • #718
    Pai Mei
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 240 ✭✭Pai Mei


    Gay =/= paedophile so why is this an issue for same sex marriage?


  • #719
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,774 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    SW wrote: »
    not at all. You are saying that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because a child molester would marry a man to get access to children. I presume you also are opposed to heterosexual marriage for the same reason?

    No, to make that example equivalent to your argument against same-sex marriage, you would be suggesting no-one could become a priest because a child molester might join the priesthood to molest children.

    no one is suggesting that but your same-sex couples = child molesters isn't exactly a mature and respectul perspective that LGBT deserve when you're discussing them. Show some empathy/humanity toward your fellow humans.

    Heterosexual marriage has risks, but two men are a much higher risk than two women or a man and a woman.

    A priest is not allowed under church rules for child protection to be alone with a child, to prevent abuse and to prevent false allegations. A child molester would not join the church now, it doesn't make sense, it has been exposed and the church's own child safety standards were deemed to be higher than what the state requires.

    I am showing them empathy, I am thinking of the hurt that is possible if paedophiles do to homosexuals what they did to priests.


  • #720
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Pai Mei wrote: »
    Gay =/= paedophile so why is this an issue for same sex marriage?

    Because homophobes need to come up with some short of ****ty excuse to force their values on everybody else.


  • Advertisement
  • #721
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Heterosexual marriage has risks, but two men are a much higher risk than two women or a man and a woman.

    A priest is not allowed under church rules for child protection to be alone with a child, to prevent abuse and to prevent false allegations. A child molester would not join the church now, it doesn't make sense, it has been exposed and the church's own child safety standards were deemed to be higher than what the state requires.

    I am showing them empathy, I am thinking of the hurt that is possible if paedophiles do to homosexuals what they did to priests.

    "them"


Advertisement