SSM Referendum Spring 2015

fran17 · 02-07-2014 08:33PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

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:

so the little old lady who votes no because of a strong religious belief or the man who votes no because he feels it is eroding his understanding of the family unit are "homophobes". fact?

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 08:34PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

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".

Were people being anti-clerical when they first raised concerned about the church?
I wouldn't have believed them. It was shocking enough with Bishop Casey fathering a child, no one thought that would end up a minor thing compared to what was to come later.

Delirium · 02-07-2014 08:34PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

And single male fathers it seems.

and police, social workers, doctors, teachers etc. etc.

fran17 · 02-07-2014 08:34PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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.

im very curious to get your opinion on my question though? if I may

shruikan2553 · 02-07-2014 08:36PM

fran17 wrote: »

so the little old lady who votes no because of a strong religious belief or the man who votes no because he feels it is eroding his understanding of the family unit are "homophobes". fact?

Again

shruikan2553 wrote: »

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

Bubbaclaus · 02-07-2014 08:36PM

fran17 wrote: »

so the little old lady who votes no because of a strong religious belief or the man who votes no because he feels it is eroding his understanding of the family unit are "homophobes". fact?

Use this logic, except pretend it is a civil rights movement like 60s America.

Are the little old lady and the man voting No now racist?

I think they are racist.

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 08:37PM

fran17 wrote: »

im very curious to get your opinion on my question though? if I may

So you agree that suggestion is homophobic?

Amirani · 02-07-2014 08:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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

So you're basing your view on likelihood and probability here, seems a somewhat rational thing to do. However, it's not really rational at all if you have any decent understanding of risk.

The risk of an adoptive female being a paedophile is a fraction of 1 percent. The risk of an adoptive male being a paedophile is a slightly larger fraction of one percent. The idea of banning males from adopting children because of this is ludicrous and steeped in ignorance.

Regardless, homosexuals are already allowed to adopt children so it's not relevant to this debate.

J_E · 02-07-2014 08:37PM

fran17 wrote: »

so the little old lady who votes no because of a strong religious belief or the man who votes no because he feels it is eroding his understanding of the family unit are "homophobes". fact?

It depends on what you define as 'homophobe', but they are imposing a pretty unfair limit on others based on their own opinion. Do you think that's very fair? If I don't like a kind of television show should I strive to stop other people watching it?

Just a reminder of your own stance on this subject again, just to help other posters understand;

fran17 wrote:

this tread is a prime example of how this poison is seeping into the fabric of society nowadays.completely one sided with gay boys and fag hags having a rant about the pillars our society have been built on for thousands of years.why nowadays is anyone who disapproves of homosexuality immediately attacked for being a bigot and a "homophobe"(whatever that means)?

...

listen we could go round and round this roundabout all day and I for one have a life to get on with.bottom line is homosexuality will never be tolerated in mainstream society(sorry guys but this is a fact).I much preferred when ye congregated in public toilets and parks at night and sordid dens

DazMarz · 02-07-2014 08:37PM

The whole "all gays are paedos" thing is straight from Russia. Seriously. The bigots and homophobes in Russia today are justifying their hatred, violence and discrimination against LGBT people by equating them with paedophiles. This is bottom of the barrel, gutter arguments. It is highly insulting, derogatory and bordering on hate speech.

Then we have the wonderful loony from Stateside, Rick Santorum, who is a wonderful example of humanity. This piece of filth equated being gay with bestiality.

How any right minded person would want to be associated with the neo-Nazis in Russia or the Republican/Tea-Party lunatics from America is beyond me. Both of them are equally deplorable and serve only to foster hatred and continue to persecute minorities.

You know how we look back upon times gone? When women, blacks, Jews, etc. all did not have equal rights and how we are stunned at how backward things were back then? Well, 30 or 40 years from now, our children and grandchildren (including those with two dads or two mums) will look back with horror and wonder how this was allowed to happen, why it happened and be thankful that it does not go on in their age. Homophobia will soon (hopefully) be consigned to the dustbin of bigotry, along with institutionalised racism and sexism.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 08:38PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

"them"

You are being very touchy.

Bubbaclaus · 02-07-2014 08:38PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Were people being anti-clerical when they first raised concerned about the church?
I wouldn't have believed them. It was shocking enough with Bishop Casey fathering a child, no one thought that would end up a minor thing compared to what was to come later.

So if you had your way you would ban priests, just in case?

eviltwin · 02-07-2014 08:38PM

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.

There are much easier ways to get access to a child than go through the legal minefield that is adoption. Adoptions have all but stalled in this country anyway. If your really serious then we'd have to ban gay men working with children or adopting as sole parents or having access to nieces and nephews cause a person dead set on abusing a child will find one.

I wonder do you view fathers in general in such low regard.

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 08:38PM

Diego Simeone wrote: »

So you're basing your view on likelihood and probability here, seems a somewhat rational thing to do. However, it's not really rational at all if you have any decent understanding of risk.

The risk of an adoptive female being a paedophile is a fraction of 1 percent. The risk of an adoptive male being a paedophile is a slightly larger fraction of one percent. The idea of banning males from adopting children because of this is ludicrous and steeped in ignorance.

Regardless, homosexuals are already allowed to adopt children so it's not relevant to this debate.

Plus the fact the adoption board doesnt just hand over kids with no background checks ffs.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 08:38PM

DazMarz wrote: »

The whole "all gays are paedos" thing is straight from Russia. Seriously. The bigots and homophobes in Russia today are justifying their hatred, violence and discrimination against LGBT people by equating them with paedophiles. This is bottom of the barrel, gutter arguments. It is highly insulting, derogatory and bordering on hate speech.

Then we have the wonderful loony from Stateside, Rick Santorum, who is a wonderful example of humanity. This piece of filth equated being gay with bestiality.

How any right minded person would want to be associated with the neo-Nazis in Russia or the Republican/Tea-Party lunatics from America is beyond me. Both of them are equally deplorable and serve only to foster hatred and continue to persecute minorities.

You know how we look back upon times gone? When women, blacks, Jews, etc. all did not have equal rights and how we are stunned at how backward things were back then? Well, 30 or 40 years from now, our children and grandchildren (including those with two dads or two mums) will look back with horror and wonder how this was allowed to happen, why it happened and be thankful that it does not go on in their age. Homophobia will soon (hopefully) be consigned to the dustbin of bigotry, along with institutionalised racism and sexism.

Who thinks "all gays are paedos"?

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 08:39PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Plus the fact the adoption board doesnt just hand over kids with no background checks ffs.

If you have a clean record how do they discover any ill intent?

Bubbaclaus · 02-07-2014 08:39PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You are being very touchy.

Equal rights for all citizens of Ireland is a touchy subject for me.

Interesting how you are so determined to vote against it.

Amirani · 02-07-2014 08:40PM

fran17 wrote: »

so the little old lady who votes no because of a strong religious belief or the man who votes no because he feels it is eroding his understanding of the family unit are "homophobes". fact?

Yes, fact.

Most people are homophobic to some degree, including homosexuals, largely because of the culture we grow up in. It's the degree that's important. Opposing equality before the law is a very big and unreasonable degree.

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 08:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

If you have a clean record how do they discover any ill intent?

Ban all adoption then. And Priests. And pregnancies.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 08:40PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

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?

They are, cases in Australia, the UK and US show this is happening.

Bubbaclaus · 02-07-2014 08:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

If you have a clean record how do they discover any ill intent?

Lets just ban all humans from having children. Just to be safe.

shruikan2553 · 02-07-2014 08:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

If you have a clean record how do they discover any ill intent?

Everyone has a clean record at some point before they abuse children. Do you stay away from children?

Delirium · 02-07-2014 08:41PM

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.

So you're saying that if a child claimed to be molested by their adoptive parents, people wouldn't believe them? That adoptive parents are seen as perfect parents and could never do such a thing?

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

After all the abuse scandals experienced in this country I'd be amazed if the authorities dismissed claims of abuse from a child. This is just conflating homosexuality with child molestation. It's a terrible thing to do in a discussion that demands an adult/mature discussion.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 08:41PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Equal rights for all citizens of Ireland is a touchy subject for me.

Interesting how you are so determined to vote against it.

If people stopped quoting me I wouldn't have to answer more questions.

housetypeb · 02-07-2014 08:42PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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

That's a very odd way to think.

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 08:42PM

housetypeb wrote: »

That's a very odd way to think.

Exactly and its very mysandrist as well.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 08:43PM

SW wrote: »

So you're saying that if a child claimed to be molested by their adoptive parents, people wouldn't believe them? That adoptive parents are seen as perfect parents and could never do such a thing?

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

After all the abuse scandals experienced in this country I'd be amazed if the authorities dismissed claims of abuse from a child. This is just conflating homosexuality with child molestation. It's a terrible thing to do in a discussion that demands an adult/mature discussion.

It is easier to hide abuse in a family setting. We know from cases it is often years after the abuse the abuser is exposed by the victim.

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 08:44PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is easier to hide abuse in a family setting. We know from cases it is often years after the abuse the abuser is exposed by the victim.

So we should shove all orphans back into institutions. Yay.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 08:44PM

housetypeb wrote: »

That's a very odd way to think.

The stats show men are many many more times likely to abuse than a woman is.
The case is strong for woman/woman adoption, much weaker for men overall.

Bubbaclaus · 02-07-2014 08:45PM

RobertKK wrote: »

If people stopped quoting me I wouldn't have to answer more questions.

You haven't answered any questions. You just keep going off topic by referring to how men will abuse kids, which has nothing to do with the upcoming SSM Referendum.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments