How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

eviltwin · 22-03-2015 01:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It says a lot about you, It says a lot about you. I don't care what it says about me.

I should come on here and tell lies to keep people like you happy, that would be the adult thing, right? Be PC and afraid to post what one really believes because eviltwin will have to rant about a person being truthful in their opinion and views is childish and distasteful.
A lot of people don't buy the equality argument, but some are not mature enough to realise that.

I respect your honesty, its not easy when you are a minority voice. I don't respect people who try and justify their reasons when it comes down to simply not believing that gay people deserve the same rights as straight people.

P_1 · 22-03-2015 01:34PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Australian police said same sex marriage was used as a cover in one paedophile scandal.
It involved Australia, the US and Russia. It led to Russia banning adoption to a number of countries given it was a Russian child that was being taken around the world by the two men to be abused by other men.
My argument is this will blow up in the faces of the gay community in the future just like when paedophiles joined the church because it gave them a cover of respect and people were afraid to boo to a priest, people are the same now with gay people because they fear causing unintended offense.
If one cared for others they would say it, better to be hated for saying something people don't want to hear.
Because they then have no excuses when it happens.

All you need to be is a paedophile with no record, hook up with another paedophile who has no record, pretend to be gay and pretend to be lovers, have your SSM, go through the process and get access to a child.
This is what happened in Australia.
It is not fantasy, it is already a reality, but no one wants to have a public debate because it will cause offense, even though the intention is good.

Way to tar an entire community based on the actions of two sick animals...

Bannasidhe · 22-03-2015 01:43PM

P_1 wrote: »

Way to tar an entire community based on the actions of two sick animals...

Not fair to animals :mad:

But I take your point. It's Myra Hindley + Ian Brady = every heterosexual couple ever.

Nice. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 01:45PM

P_1 wrote: »

Way to tar an entire community based on the actions of two sick animals...

What also seems to have gone over Robert's head is the fact that the same community which informs his views with regard to marriage equality, he uses pedophilia in that community to make a point about pedophilia in another community as a reason to deny them marriage equality.

The argument caves in on itself due to Robert missing the obvious circular reasoning.

fran17 · 22-03-2015 01:45PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Fran many many people of faith do not share your views whatsoever.

Maybe so and I never claimed they do.However what I stated is the stance of all faiths,bar none.
Why you so persistently try to give the false perception that the church welcomes people who commit these acts is beyond me.

fran17 · 22-03-2015 01:47PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Please fran, I'd rather you acknowledge that you don't speak for anyone but yourself when it comes to taking offence on behalf of other people. I don't share your views on many things, least of all your less than persuasive non-starter arguments about religion.

You're right that ignorance will always exist (in fact some people might be so cruel as to suggest your opinions are empirical evidence of the fact. Me personally - I think you just like to play the persecuted martyr), and as for those deemed to know better?

Given the mountains of evidence presented to refute your arguments, the fact you persist with the same clap-trap tells me one of two things - you refusal to acknowledge the evidence shows you're choosing to remain either willfully ignorant, or you know full well what you're doing and you're just on a wind-up.

You have very little leeway to complain about an ignorant mob when you're the person who is persistently baiting people by making ignorant comments and then expecting that other people should remain civil in their reply.

Treat other people as you would like to be treated.

Believe what you will.I am not here to tip my hat to anyone therefor I speak the truth.

tigger123 · 22-03-2015 01:48PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Australian police said same sex marriage was used as a cover in one paedophile scandal.
It involved Australia, the US and Russia. It led to Russia banning adoption to a number of countries given it was a Russian child that was being taken around the world by the two men to be abused by other men.
My argument is this will blow up in the faces of the gay community in the future just like when paedophiles joined the church because it gave them a cover of respect and people were afraid to boo to a priest, people are the same now with gay people because they fear causing unintended offense.
If one cared for others they would say it, better to be hated for saying something people don't want to hear.
Because they then have no excuses when it happens.

All you need to be is a paedophile with no record, hook up with another paedophile who has no record, pretend to be gay and pretend to be lovers, have your SSM, go through the process and get access to a child.
This is what happened in Australia.
It is not fantasy, it is already a reality, but no one wants to have a public debate because it will cause offense, even though the intention is good.

Such a nonsensical weak argument. If those two paedophiles hadn't used that scenario to get access to a child, they would have used some other method.

tigger123 · 22-03-2015 01:50PM

fran17 wrote: »

Maybe so and I never claimed they do.However what I stated is the stance of all faiths,bar none.
Why you so persistently try to give the false perception that the church welcomes people who commit these acts is beyond me.

These acts?

B_Wayne · 22-03-2015 01:51PM

fran17 wrote: »

Maybe so and I never claimed they do.However what I stated is the stance of all faiths,bar none.
Why you so persistently try to give the false perception that the church welcomes people who commit these acts is beyond me.

Nonsense from Fran, shocked! Denominations in religions vary a fair bit on subject. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_religious_groups

P_1 · 22-03-2015 01:53PM

tigger123 wrote: »

These acts?

I believe he is referring to what is colloquially known as "potting the brown". Of course in the biblical definition, sodomy basically describes sex that is not done with procreation in mind...

Quite why the religious right is so obsessed with anal sex though continues to perplex me, to borrow a line from a certain Castlebar politician perhaps they should try it some day

eviltwin · 22-03-2015 01:54PM

tigger123 wrote: »

These acts?

Anal sex. Funny they have no issue with hetero couples who have anal sex.

Bannasidhe · 22-03-2015 01:57PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here are four Christian religions who are pro-Gay.

Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ
Ecumenical Catholic Church
Metropolitan Community Church.

In case you were not aware of the existence of religions that do not owe their origins to a few Jewish nomads living in a Middle Eastern desert which pre-date Christianity you might be interested to learn the Mayans and the Aztecs both had specific gods of homosexuality before the Conquistadors arrived to tell them all about Jesus and slaughtered anyone who refused to believe.

Too far away - how about the Greeks? In their Pantheon Aphrodite was, among other things, the goddess of lesbianism.

Too ancient for you? How about the fact that the Dalai Lama has publicly stated his support for same-sex marriage.

Perhaps Buddhism is too exotic for you, you might prefer a more local religion like Wicca. Wiccans believe homosexuality is a healthy expression of human sexuality.

Maybe you will wish to dismiss the Dalai Lama as just one man (rather like the Pope is...) and Wicca is too decentralised to count as an actual religion due to not having any dedicated, constructed by humans, places of worship but in Taiwan - right now- there is a Taoist Temple dedicated to Tu Er Shen, a deity specifically dedicated to the love and affection between men.

But that's not really relevant to Ireland is it? Can't imagine we have many Taoists (although I do know a surprising large number of Wiccans...). We need some more 'normal', Something 'nice'. Something 'non-threatening'. Like the Vicar of Dibley... or rather the Bishop of Los Angeles. Her name is Mary Glasspool. She is an out lesbian. But that's L.A.... hardly Dibley is it. Brighton and Hove is more like it. In 2005 the Rev Debbie Gaston civil partnered with her girl friend of 16 years Elaine Gaston

Which brings us to various Anglican Communions.. openly bisexual bishop ordained in the Episcopal Church in 2003, Anglican Communion of New Zealand welcome non-celibate gay clergy, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) love the gays - they issued a lengthy statement in 2013 saying so... The 'Mother church' of Anglicanism - The Church of England ordains gays, as does The Church of Scotland...

The Lutheran Church in Germany and Sweden not only condones homosexuality - they welcome sexually active gays into the clergy... AND since 2006 the Swedish Lutheran Church has been performing same-sex marriages...

I am not saying there is not debate or that every member of the religions named above are mad about the gays but the evidence is clear that your contention that There is no religion which either condones or promotes homosexual activity. is demonstrably false.

Have you ever considered carrying out some basic research before you post?

fran17 wrote: »

Maybe so and I never claimed they do.However what I stated is the stance of all faiths,bar none.

Look above. It is NOT the stance of all faiths bar none. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly yet you continue to perpetuate this lie.

Isn't there a Commandment about Baring False Witness?

By the standards of your own faith you are committing a mortal sin.

How do you like those apples?

tigger123 · 22-03-2015 01:58PM

I'm always perplexed by the rabidly homophobic. Almost as if they're fighting against something.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 02:00PM

P_1 wrote: »

Way to tar an entire community based on the actions of two sick animals...

You see this is the problem that they will face. I did not tar an entire community, but that is what some will do like they did with the church and you would see it on this forum, yet you would not get the same outrage.

There was the foster care couple in England, two men who abused foster children. In the past there was too much respect for priests and fear of saying anything negative about them. In this case in England, a social worker said she didn't raise concerns as she feared of being viewed as homophobic.

The same type of things that allowed abuse in the church is the same type of thing that will allow people to abuse homosexuals via children.
This is a reality, it is not about tarring anyone, you have to look at it to how a child abuser would. We learned a lot from what happened in the church into how they operate. They didn't care about the church or its people, the same will happen to homosexual people, these people don't care if they bring scandal to your door.
Homosexuals won't have invited them in, they will let themselves in for their own purpose.

If one cares about people whether they are gay people, or if one cares about children, then this shouldn't be brushed aside as simply tarring a whole community.
They should know what it exposes them to, it is always the innocent whether it was good priests, gay people who did nothing wrong that will end up getting tarred.
Just ask RTE Primetime, they let prejudice put an innocent priest through hell and told the whole country he was a child abuser.
I don't want gay people being labelled like priests have been. You see it on this forum the prejudice that exists towards priests by some.
I believe it is very wrong to brand any group as being child abusers apart from proven guilty paedophiles wherever they come from in society.

There is the saying 'The law of unintended consequences'. I simply believe this is one of them. I know how dark and bad it felt during the darkest days of the church's sex abuse scandals, I wouldn't wish it on anybody, any group or community.
I think in decades time we will see the unintended consequences, because paedophiles care about no one, no group or community, they only care about their own sexual desires and making them a reality.

MRnotlob606 · 22-03-2015 02:02PM

I am not convinced about voting yes.

P_1 · 22-03-2015 02:02PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You see this is the problem that they will face. I did not tar an entire community, but that is what some will do like they did with the church and you would see it on this forum, yet you would not get the same outrage.

There was the foster care couple in England, two men who abused foster children. In the past there was too much respect for priests and fear of saying anything negative about them. In this case in England, a social worker said she didn't raise concerns as she feared of being viewed as homophobic.

The same type of things that allowed abuse in the church is the same type of thing that will allow people to abuse homosexuals via children.
This is a reality, it is not about tarring anyone, you have to look at it to how a child abuser would. We learned a lot from what happened in the church into how they operate. They didn't care about the church or its people, the same will happen to homosexual people, these people don't care if they bring scandal to your door.
Homosexuals won't have invited them in, they will let themselves in for their own purpose.

If one cares about people whether they are gay people, or if one cares about children, then this shouldn't be brushed aside as simply tarring a whole community.
They should know what it exposes them to, it is always the innocent whether it was good priests, gay people who did nothing wrong that will end up getting tarred.
Just ask RTE Primetime, they let prejudice put an innocent priest through hell and told the whole country he was a child abuser.
I don't want gay people being labelled like priests have been. You see it on this forum the prejudice that exists towards priests by some.
I believe it is very wrong to brand any group as being child abusers apart from proven guilty paedophiles wherever they come from in society.

There is the saying 'The law of unintended consequences'. I simply believe this is one of them. I know how dark and bad it felt during the darkest days of the church's sex abuse scandals, I wouldn't wish it on anybody, any group or community.
I think in decades time we will see the unintended consequences, because paedohiles care about no one, no group or community, they only care about their own sexual desires and making them a reality.

Well the obvious solution to that is to ensure that the correct vetting procedures (that are long established) are adhered to, not by just shutting off an entire community due to the actions of a tiny depraved minority.

eviltwin · 22-03-2015 02:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You see this is the problem that they will face. I did not tar an entire community, but that is what some will do like they did with the church and you would see it on this forum, yet you would not get the same outrage.

There was the foster care couple in England, two men who abused foster children. In the past there was too much respect for priests and fear of saying anything negative about them. In this case in England, a social worker said she didn't raise concerns as she feared of being viewed as homophobic.

The same type of things that allowed abuse in the church is the same type of thing that will allow people to abuse homosexuals via children.
This is a reality, it is not about tarring anyone, you have to look at it to how a child abuser would. We learned a lot from what happened in the church into how they operate. They didn't care about the church or its people, the same will happen to homosexual people, these people don't care if they bring scandal to your door.
Homosexuals won't have invited them in, they will let themselves in for their own purpose.

If one cares about people whether they are gay people, or if one cares about children, then this shouldn't be brushed aside as simply tarring a whole community.
They should know what it exposes them to, it is always the innocent whether it was good priests, gay people who did nothing wrong that will end up getting tarred.
Just ask RTE Primetime, they let prejudice put an innocent priest through hell and told the whole country he was a child abuser.
I don't want gay people being labelled like priests have been. You see it on this forum the prejudice that exists towards priests by some.
I believe it is very wrong to brand any group as being child abusers apart from proven guilty paedophiles wherever they come from in society.

There is the saying 'The law of unintended consequences'. I simply believe this is one of them. I know how dark and bad it felt during the darkest days of the church's sex abuse scandals, I wouldn't wish it on anybody, any group or community.
I think in decades time we will see the unintended consequences, because paedophiles care about no one, no group or community, they only care about their own sexual desires and making them a reality.

I fail to see what that has to do with SSM. A gay couple will still be able to have a child either by adoption or other methods if the referendum doesn't pass. It won't make it any harder for a paedophile to abuse a child. There is a problem with certain people being overly PC but that is not the problem of the gay community and shouldn't be used to deny them rights. Plenty of straight men abuse and rape children, often their own kids...should we deny straight couples the right to marry because of the actions of a few sickos?

fran17 · 22-03-2015 02:08PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Nonsense from Fran, shocked! Denominations in religions vary a fair bit on subject. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_religious_groups

"The church of satan is the first church to fully accept members regardless of sexual orientation".

You truly are a buffoon "B_Wayne".

bb1234567 · 22-03-2015 02:09PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Australian police said same sex marriage was used as a cover in one paedophile scandal.
It involved Australia, the US and Russia. It led to Russia banning adoption to a number of countries given it was a Russian child that was being taken around the world by the two men to be abused by other men.
My argument is this will blow up in the faces of the gay community in the future just like when paedophiles joined the church because it gave them a cover of respect and people were afraid to boo to a priest, people are the same now with gay people because they fear causing unintended offense.
If one cared for others they would say it, better to be hated for saying something people don't want to hear.
Because they then have no excuses when it happens.

All you need to be is a paedophile with no record, hook up with another paedophile who has no record, pretend to be gay and pretend to be lovers, have your SSM, go through the process and get access to a child.
This is what happened in Australia.
It is not fantasy, it is already a reality, but no one wants to have a public debate because it will cause offense, even though the intention is good.

Jesus Christ!! Ive never even heard the most brainwashed of bible beaters try to claim all gay male couples were paedophiles! You're taking generalising to all new levels of ridiculousness.

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 02:09PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You see this is the problem that they will face. I did not tar an entire community, but that is what some will do like they did with the church and you would see it on this forum, yet you would not get the same outrage.

There was the foster care couple in England, two men who abused foster children. In the past there was too much respect for priests and fear of saying anything negative about them. In this case in England, a social worker said she didn't raise concerns as she feared of being viewed as homophobic.

The same type of things that allowed abuse in the church is the same type of thing that will allow people to abuse homosexuals via children.
This is a reality, it is not about tarring anyone, you have to look at it to how a child abuser would. We learned a lot from what happened in the church into how they operate. They didn't care about the church or its people, the same will happen to homosexual people, these people don't care if they bring scandal to your door.
Homosexuals won't have invited them in, they will let themselves in for their own purpose.

If one cares about people whether they are gay people, or if one cares about children, then this shouldn't be brushed aside as simply tarring a whole community.
They should know what it exposes them to, it is always the innocent whether it was good priests, gay people who did nothing wrong that will end up getting tarred.
Just ask RTE Primetime, they let prejudice put an innocent priest through hell and told the whole country he was a child abuser.
I don't want gay people being labelled like priests have been. You see it on this forum the prejudice that exists towards priests by some.
I believe it is very wrong to brand any group as being child abusers apart from proven guilty paedophiles wherever they come from in society.

There is the saying 'The law of unintended consequences'. I simply believe this is one of them. I know how dark and bad it felt during the darkest days of the church's sex abuse scandals, I wouldn't wish it on anybody, any group or community.
I think in decades time we will see the unintended consequences, because paedophiles care about no one, no group or community, they only care about their own sexual desires and making them a reality.

You're right, but who is at fault there then?

Denying people who are LGBT the opportunity to equal participation in society and the protection of that society is not going to do anything to prevent paedophiles from abusing children.

You say you wouldn't want to tar an entire community, so don't. It's quite simple really.

B_Wayne · 22-03-2015 02:09PM

Dear Robert,
Men and women in straight relationships abuse children. You've made a case for banning marriage more than anything... Doesn't relate to two men or women. You're simply ignoring these points as per normal and will get irate when people call you up on them.

bb1234567 · 22-03-2015 02:11PM

tigger123 wrote: »

I'm always perplexed by the rabidly homophobic. Almost as if they're fighting against something.

Internalised self hatred perhaps. I always suspect the most homophobic are in fact homosexual themselves, so determined to distance themselves from what they are that they'll try to offend those who are the same as them as much as possible.

Reiketsu · 22-03-2015 02:16PM

fran17 wrote: »

"The church of satan is the first church to fully accept members regardless of sexual orientation".

You truly are a buffoon "B_Wayne".

LaVeyan Satanism isn't what you think it is but you would know that if you bothered to do any research before posting things.

Cuban Pete · 22-03-2015 02:32PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You see this is the problem that they will face. I did not tar an entire community, but that is what some will do like they did with the church

And who would "they" be in this instance? Because I'm pretty sure abusing children makes someone a child abuser, not gay.

bb1234567 · 22-03-2015 02:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You see this is the problem that they will face. I did not tar an entire community, but that is what some will do like they did with the church and you would see it on this forum, yet you would not get the same outrage.

There was the foster care couple in England, two men who abused foster children. In the past there was too much respect for priests and fear of saying anything negative about them. In this case in England, a social worker said she didn't raise concerns as she feared of being viewed as homophobic.

The same type of things that allowed abuse in the church is the same type of thing that will allow people to abuse homosexuals via children.
This is a reality, it is not about tarring anyone, you have to look at it to how a child abuser would. We learned a lot from what happened in the church into how they operate. They didn't care about the church or its people, the same will happen to homosexual people, these people don't care if they bring scandal to your door.
Homosexuals won't have invited them in, they will let themselves in for their own purpose.

If one cares about people whether they are gay people, or if one cares about children, then this shouldn't be brushed aside as simply tarring a whole community.
They should know what it exposes them to, it is always the innocent whether it was good priests, gay people who did nothing wrong that will end up getting tarred.
Just ask RTE Primetime, they let prejudice put an innocent priest through hell and told the whole country he was a child abuser.
I don't want gay people being labelled like priests have been. You see it on this forum the prejudice that exists towards priests by some.
I believe it is very wrong to brand any group as being child abusers apart from proven guilty paedophiles wherever they come from in society.

There is the saying 'The law of unintended consequences'. I simply believe this is one of them. I know how dark and bad it felt during the darkest days of the church's sex abuse scandals, I wouldn't wish it on anybody, any group or community.
I think in decades time we will see the unintended consequences, because paedophiles care about no one, no group or community, they only care about their own sexual desires and making them a reality.

Robert, tarring an entire community is exactly what you're doing. Do you have an evidence whatsoever to support your theory that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles than straight men? Because Id love to hear about this

B_Wayne · 22-03-2015 02:41PM

fran17 wrote: »

"The church of satan is the first church to fully accept members regardless of sexual orientation".

You truly are a buffoon "B_Wayne".

I actually know a fair few Wiccans. I know church of Ireland priests that would find your views to be abhorrent and are pro marriage equality . Also, grow up a tad Fran...

But to be frank, there's no actual basis for the immorality of gay people having relationships. Just because you're celebratory of a religion's dogmatic intolerance, does not make their position to be justified. It tends to be more representative of historical homophobia that was considered to be okay. Does not make it right.

Sure, what am I but a buffoon? I'd suspect most in real life and on here would disagree...

junospider · 22-03-2015 02:53PM

I will be voting NO because of the word marriage. Marriage is between man and woman,I would probably vote yes if they worded it differently.
Everyone is entitled to happiness.Incedentally I believe it is wrong for 2 men to raise children.

marienbad · 22-03-2015 02:55PM

junospider wrote: »

I will be voting NO because of the word marriage. Marriage is between man and woman,I would probably vote yes if they worded it differently.
Everyone is entitled to happiness.Incedentally I believe it is wrong for 2 men to raise children.

I somehow don't think the raising of children is incidental ?

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 03:01PM

junospider wrote: »

I will be voting NO because of the word marriage. Marriage is between man and woman,I would probably vote yes if they worded it differently.
Everyone is entitled to happiness.Incedentally I believe it is wrong for 2 men to raise children.

Ah well, your mind is not for changing I guess.

I mean, I could work myself into a tizzy exploring your reasons for holding the opinions you do, but I don't imagine you're likely to change your opinion if you haven't already, having read the last 300 or so pages.

You have read the thread, right?

Or did you just jump in and expect everyone to entertain you...

StewartGriffin · 22-03-2015 03:14PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ah well, your mind is not for changing I guess.

I mean, I could work myself into a tizzy exploring your reasons for holding the opinions you do, but I don't imagine you're likely to change your opinion if you haven't already, having read the last 300 or so pages.

You have read the thread, right?

Or did you just jump in and expect everyone to entertain you...

He/she posted a reply to the thread op, do you honestly expect anyone to read 300 pages of bickering?

What kind of question is that about expecting everyone to entertain you? Almost as if you own the thread and a guest has just dropped in.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments