pharmaton wrote: » I think we should all be allowed to adopt gay people personally but I wouldn't force my views on anyone either tbf
liam24 wrote: » Yes. A few years ago I was an outspoken racist in a powerful position who called for black people to be stripped of all rights. Now I've changed my mind. Am I off the hook and no longer responsible for that?
liam24 wrote: » I bet you'd like to adopt one into your anus.
liam24 wrote: » Can you not read? I said if he didn't change his mind he's a scumbag. Because anybody who opposes gay adoption, especially homosexuals who do so, are scumbags.
pharmaton wrote: » ' I bet you think I'm a man, and also a man who likes to put other men and things into his anus. I imagine your post would make more sense that way.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I know what you have said i am asking you to explain WHY? It seems no matter what his stance is, according to you he is a scumbag.
liam24 wrote: » No that's not what I'm saying at all actually.
liam24 wrote: » Either he's changed his mind, in which case he's a scumbag because he originally opposed it purely for political reasons when living in denial, or he hasn't changed his mind, which makes him a scumbag for different reasons.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » You said
liam24 wrote: » Yes, so the fact of his having made the speech makes him a scumbag, regardless of what he does. He's not a scumbag no matter what - he wouldn't be a scumbag if he hadn't opposed gay adoption, for example.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » As i said There's just no pleasing some people :rolleyes: Heads up for you kiddo, not everyone in favour of ssm is in favour of adoption rights for gay couples, that doesn't make them scum that just means they have the right to their opinions.
liam24 wrote: » Yes, the KKK have a right to their opinion too I suppose. And I have a right to say that they're bigots.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » And on that you would be right.
eviltwin wrote: » He was always gay, he just wasn't openly gay. He is allowed to change his mind. And what do you mean by "people like him".
K-9 wrote: » Well jank does seem to have a problem with something, sees it as immature anyway:
jank wrote: » Probably because it is. Even teenagers usually go behind a wall or the shed to maul the face of each other. If grown men and women have the need to maul the face off each other for 10 minutes on a public street during the day, I would say most people would think to themselves 'get a room'.
maul [mawl] Spell Syllables Examples Word Origin noun 1. a heavy hammer, as for driving stakes or wedges. 2. Archaic. a heavy club or mace. verb (used with object) 3. to handle or use roughly: The book was badly mauled by its borrowers. 4. to injure by a rough beating, shoving, or the like; bruise: to be mauled by an angry crowd. 5. to split with a maul and wedge, as a wooden rail.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I like to think i have kissed more than my fair share of the ladies in my day, I have kissed in public a few times but never "mauled" the face off anyone as you keep putting it, I wonder why that is Oh wait
floggg wrote: » You aren't absolved of any past wrong doings, but you are entitled to grow and develop as a person and try to make amends for your past. Anybody who does that should be celebrated (the growing and making amends, not being a big bad racist).
bjork wrote: » LABOUR party politician Dominic Hannigan has become the first TD to enter a same-sex marriagehttp://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dominic-hannigan-becomes-first-td-to-enter-samesex-marriage-30924980.html
jobbridge4life wrote: » In order to make amends though you have to address your misdeeds. The sum of what I heard from Leo was 'in the last two years I realised/accepted that I was gay, now that I am gay I want to be treated equally'. I understand of course the difficulties and mental gymnastics that go with being closeted and then open but I do believe he owes his fellow gay people an explanation of why he tried to impugn our parental abilities and demeaned queer families. And maybe an apology.
floggg wrote: » As somebody who lived not only in the closet, but in denial, until my mid 20s, I know your head can be so twisted by what you don't want to be that you will believe and say things you later come to regret. So I am happy to give him a pass (assuming he wasn't doing it solely for reasons of political expediency). When closeted or struggling gay people speak against LGBT rights, I don't see them as perpetrating homophobia - I see them as victims of it. Sometimes gay people can absorb so much anti-gay negativity that they start to believe it.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Look at that? The sky hasn't caught fire, the earths crust hasn't split down the middle and unleashed the beasts of hell, In fact i don't think a leaf has fallen off a tree because of this. Fair play to them.
jobbridge4life wrote: » No doubt and I am more than willing to embrace Leo;) I do think an explanation or apology would be beneficial and worthwhile however.
floggg wrote: » I don't see they need to apologise per se. Lucinda Creighton changed her position on marriage equality recently - do we expect her to apologise? I think most of us would rather applaud her (except he cynical types who think any politician who changes their mind is evil). I'm sure half the country has changed their view on it over the past 10 years as well. An explanation would be good.
Stark wrote: » 10 years ago I would have held pro-life views, these days I'd be almost militantly pro-choice. People's views change over time as they become better educated on issues, exposed to various debates etc. Don't think that makes one a hypocrite. And don't think any more explanation is needed than "I wasn't aware of the issues then, I am now".
jobbridge4life wrote: » Leo can't possibly claim that he wasn't aware of the issues considering the fact that the reason we are discussing this is that he stood up in the Dail and delivered a speech against gay families.
