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

CiDeRmAn · 22-03-2015 09:39PM

Zen65 wrote: »

The only texts which Christians should study for morality are the New testament books which are, in the main, more rational in their writings. In that Jesus spoke only of the importance of loving each other, without the nonsense of fixating on how that love was expressed..

That's a big one.
The way that the New Testament is preoccupied with forgiving those who are different from you, tolerance and a god of unconditional love for all, yet folk just can't help going all Old Testament and the meaty smiting of enemies.
Not too much talk on the incest, bigamy and attempted child sacrifice though....

Kiwi in IE · 22-03-2015 09:46PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's a rather common argument: if gays can have civil marriage, it isn't worth having.

Do they fail to realise that without having a civil marriage included, their church weddings would be as legally relevant as children playing dress up and having a 'wedding'?

StewartGriffin · 22-03-2015 09:49PM

RobertKK writes intelligent posts putting his point of view, it's not popular here but if you have any notion of this being a debate forum you could at least afford him some respect in replying. As I see it there's 3 or 4 people here interested in genuine debate, the rest are either kids or fools, eg, "I can't wait to see the faces of everyone when the vote passed" "I'm so excited

It's like a row of old buzzards perched on a wall. Hungry. Waiting. White bones of RobertKk glistening in the sunshine.

haveringchick · 22-03-2015 09:56PM

tigger123 wrote: »

So essentially what it boils down to is that because of a certain viewpoint you have on the issue, and because you're not comfortable with it, people shouldn't be allowed marry othe people of the same gender. And you don't see how people might have a problem with that?

Do uou genuinely believe that this person is not entitled to an opinion because it doesn't match yours? Your response to his declared position is almost fascist! He doesn't agree with SSM! Your intolerance is extraordinary!
Many many people in this country and across the world feel the same. Shrieking pointing scoffing and scorning is getting you absolutely nowhere on the road to achieving your goals. In fact your hair trigger responses maybe putting off fence sitters who are browsing this thread.
Cue a good lambasting for me I suppose.

aloyisious · 22-03-2015 10:02PM

I was in Dublin at the GPO today for the launch of the Amnesty "marriage equality" Campaign. Patrick and Brighid, the married couple from Louth, spoke on the stage there about how they as practicing Roman Catholic Christians decided they were going to vote yes in the referendum. They explained that they wanted to leave a legacy of equality for their grandchildren before they passed on. I hadn't heard any other persons identify themselves as practicing Roman Catholic Christians and say they were going to vote yes in the present public debate. Patrick and Brighid have no problem with identifying as Roman Catholic Christians and still be able to vote yes on behalf of the future generations of our country. They see the vote is on State Civil Marriage, not Christian Religious Marriage.

For me, it sink's any argument put up by persons identifying as Christian (RC or other) that voting yes is wrong because of the effect it would have on children. It bring's home the message that children won't be affected NEGATIVELY by a "yes" vote, but WILL BE by acts and deeds done by persons identifying as Christian who oppose the vote.

Post edited to include upper-cased words.

bb1234567 · 22-03-2015 10:03PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

RobertKK writes intelligent posts putting his point of view, it's not popular here but if you have any notion of this being a debate forum you could at least afford him some respect in replying. As I see it there's 3 or 4 people here interested in genuine debate, the rest are either kids or fools, eg, "I can't wait to see the faces of everyone when the vote passed" "I'm so excited!". Oh, and there's one other who feels it necessary to continually refer to her career in academic history.
It's like a row of old buzzards perched on a wall. Hungry. Waiting. White bones of RobertKk glistening in the sunshine.

If Robert or any other no voters could put forward a valid argument against same sex marriage then we would have a wonderful fair debate on our hands, though thats not the case

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 10:03PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

RobertKK writes intelligent posts putting his point of view, it's not popular here but if you have any notion of this being a debate forum you could at least afford him some respect in replying. As I see it there's 3 or 4 people here interested in genuine debate, the rest are either kids or fools, eg, "I can't wait to see the faces of everyone when the vote passed" "I'm so excited!". Oh, and there's one other who feels it necessary to continually refer to her career in academic history.
It's like a row of old buzzards perched on a wall. Hungry. Waiting. White bones of RobertKk glistening in the sunshine.

I have no interest in RobertK's boner glistening in the sunshine (whatever you're into I suppose, none of my business), but Bannisidhe I'd marry her in the morning if I was allowed to! :pac:

Her posts are interesting, fascinating and all sorts of insightful as opposed to the empty and repetitive rhetoric employed by some of the people opposed to marriage equality.

The only reason and the only time Bannisidhe has had to refer to history is because Robert must have failed to pay attention in history class and therefore has a rather misinformed opinion on such matters, not unlike his misinformed opinion on marriage equality.

Robert's posts are unfortunately far from intelligent and that's the reason why his opinions are unpopular, it's nothing personal, but you're right, people are here for intelligent debate. Good thing then that Bannisidhe is here to pick up the slack.

B_Wayne · 22-03-2015 10:04PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

RobertKK writes intelligent posts putting his point of view, it's not popular here but if you have any notion of this being a debate forum you could at least afford him some respect in replying. As I see it there's 3 or 4 people here interested in genuine debate, the rest are either kids or fools, eg, "I can't wait to see the faces of everyone when the vote passed" "I'm so excited!". Oh, and there's one other who feels it necessary to continually refer to her career in academic history.
It's like a row of old buzzards perched on a wall. Hungry. Waiting. White bones of RobertKk glistening in the sunshine.

In fairness, he attempted to lecture on an area of history that she specialises in. He was obviously wrong but as per normal, he continually denied any fault in his argument....... Robert get's annoyed at users for pointing out rather obvious flaws in his logic. Criticising his posts is an effort to silence him in his eyes. A complete refusal to properly debate from Robert.

bb1234567 · 22-03-2015 10:08PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

RobertKK writes intelligent posts putting his point of view, it's not popular here but if you have any notion of this being a debate forum you could at least afford him some respect in replying. As I see it there's 3 or 4 people here interested in genuine debate, the rest are either kids or fools, eg, "I can't wait to see the faces of everyone when the vote passed" "I'm so excited!". Oh, and there's one other who feels it necessary to continually refer to her career in academic history.
It's like a row of old buzzards perched on a wall. Hungry. Waiting. White bones of RobertKk glistening in the sunshine.

Literally all the 'evidence' the no side have is

The bible says so I hate gays I dont hate gays but SSM just doesnt sit right with me:rolleyes: God hates gays Most of the world hates gays/SSM No religions condone homosexuality, apparently Gays are paedophiles Gay children /adoption yada yada which many have still not realised is completely irrelevant to SSM Gay couples children will be bullied by heterosexual couples children (shouldn't we worry about scorning these hetero childen instead of not letting gay people adopt?) Marriage has traditionally been heterosexual and anti gay..and we should keep it that away Am I missing anything?

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 10:12PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

In fairness, he attempted to lecture on an area of history that she specialises in. He was obviously wrong but as per normal, he continually denied any fault in his argument....... Robert get's annoyed at users for pointing out rather obvious flaws in his logic. Criticising his posts is an effort to silence him in his eyes. A complete refusal to properly debate from Robert.

I got annoyed at no one. I didn't call anyone names, but while people do criticise me call names, it is amazing how silent some are.

pl4ichjgy17zwd · 22-03-2015 10:13PM

Wait...someone saying gay people shouldn't get married because they don't like it isn't fascist but someone calling out that viewpoint is?

StewartGriffin · 22-03-2015 10:14PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Literally all the 'evidence' the no side have is
The bible says so I hate gays I dont hate gays but SSM just doesnt sit right with me:rolleyes: God hates gays Most of the world hates gays/SSM No religions condone homosexuality, apparently Gays are paedophiles Gay children /adoption yada yada which many have still not realised is completely irrelevant to SSM Gay couples children will be bullied by heterosexual couples children (shouldn't we worry about scorning these hetero childen instead of not letting gay people adopt?) Marriage has traditionally been heterosexual and anti gay..and we should keep it that away Am I missing anything?

Well, at the risk of sounding horribly condescending, that's by far the best contribution you've made in 350 pages.

B_Wayne · 22-03-2015 10:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I got annoyed at no one. I didn't call anyone names, but while people do criticise me call names, it is amazing how silent some are.

One example... Both annoyed and irritable and you repeatedly behaved in a rude manner to her.

RobertKK wrote: »

Do better research please.

Kings Inns... Catholics were barred from Trinity.
Amazing there were ever hedge schools...oh yeah Catholic education was banned.
Daniel O'Connell had to campaign for Catholic Emancipation act.

Catholics weren't allowed vote until 1793.

I know the history of the of the past with the Pope and the King.

Criticisms of your logic in relation to your paedophilia argument have been largely ignored by you. You just assume you're right, that's not debate. That's arrogance.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 10:22PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Literally all the 'evidence' the no side have is
The bible says so
I hate gays
I dont hate gays but SSM just doesnt sit right with me:rolleyes:
God hates gays
Most of the world hates gays/SSM
No religions condone homosexuality, apparently
Gays are paedophiles
Gay children /adoption yada yada which many have still not realised is completely irrelevant to SSM
Gay couples children will be bullied by heterosexual couples children (shouldn't we worry about scorning these hetero childen instead of not letting gay people adopt?)
Marriage has traditionally been heterosexual and anti gay..and we should keep it that away
Am I missing anything?

I don't like how you replied with this response to a post where my name is quoted, which kind of implies I believe the things you posted.

Moonriver99 · 22-03-2015 10:25PM

Look, guys let's stop and all think logically for a second. Firstly, on regards to gay people being more likely to be involved with abusing children is completely untrue. Abusers can be straight, white, black etc. it does not matter.

Secondly, years ago black people were segregated from interacting with white people on buses! It was appalling and what you are doing is akin to treating certain people differently based on Their sexual orientation. we cannot treat gays as second class citizens. They have RIGHTS. why can't they get married?

I also feel that the people on here who will vote no or are against it do not realise that in their circle or even in their community there is a gay person, who is a nice person. Sometimes a person who happens to be gay can be bad. No matter who you are, what colour there are good and bad people. We have one life? Why not get along with everyone? Let's be inclusive of people.

Lastly, regardless of whatever way this turns out, all the narrow minded people will die with this generation, the old way of thinking will pave a way for a more tolerant people. That I am sure of. It's only a small minority who thinks that way and I do feel for them that they cannot change their ways and realise we all have are differences. Maybe once they realise most people are tolerable and do not live in a bubble they will change. Gay marriage being legalized will not stop bad things happen in the world. But you sure will make a lot of same sex couples happy. I'm not gay myself but know gay people who are brilliant, caring individuals so come on. Please stand away from being bigots and be caring too, empathetic and most of all move forward with the world

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 10:28PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

One example... Both annoyed and irritable and you repeatedly behaved in a rude manner to her.

Criticisms of your logic in relation to your paedophilia argument have been largely ignored by you. You just assume you're right, that's not debate. That's arrogance.

I was not the one doing this. Turns me off replying to someone who thinks they need to do this in replies, excessively.

I have not ignored, I debated it in the past, I don't feel the need to keep repeating, people bring up stuff from the past to have the same debate as the past, they remember what they want and forget what they want. Not my problem that people want to paint me in a certain light, like one person who wrongly accused me of saying paedophiles are gay people, no where did I say that, but it suits some people to believe what they want, rather than reality.

aloyisious · 22-03-2015 10:29PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Literally all the 'evidence' the no side have is
The bible says so I hate gays I dont hate gays but SSM just doesnt sit right with me:rolleyes: God hates gays Most of the world hates gays/SSM No religions condone homosexuality, apparently Gays are paedophiles Gay children /adoption yada yada which many have still not realised is completely irrelevant to SSM Gay couples children will be bullied by heterosexual couples children (shouldn't we worry about scorning these hetero childen instead of not letting gay people adopt?) Marriage has traditionally been heterosexual and anti gay..and we should keep it that away Am I missing anything?

SSM is harmful as it would incite homophobia and aggression against gays.

Bannasidhe · 22-03-2015 10:34PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

RobertKK writes intelligent posts putting his point of view, it's not popular here but if you have any notion of this being a debate forum you could at least afford him some respect in replying. As I see it there's 3 or 4 people here interested in genuine debate, the rest are either kids or fools, eg, "I can't wait to see the faces of everyone when the vote passed" "I'm so excited!". Oh, and there's one other who feels it necessary to continually refer to her career in academic history.
It's like a row of old buzzards perched on a wall. Hungry. Waiting. White bones of RobertKk glistening in the sunshine.

Where did I refer to my career in this tread?
I haven't. Not once never mind your hyperbolic 'continually'.

Since you are so keen to comment on who said what it's interesting that you missed it was a poster other than myself who referred to my career.
No doubt you will now withdrawn your comment and apologise for your mistake seeing as you have set yourself up as the bastion of proper debating procedures.

Perhaps since you are casting your critical eye on other's debating styles you might care to comment on how Robert had continually failed to state why events before independence should have the slightest baring on a Referendum in 2015. I shan't hold my breathe waiting.

One doesn't need a career in academic history to disprove that Robert's 'intelligent' posts which refer to history are completely inaccurate. One simply needs to do some basic research beyond wikipedia and the more sensationalist versions of diddly iddely Oirishness. Or even, *gasp* employ intelligent critical analysis to issues such as how did the Catholic O'Connells own so much land if Catholics were banned from owning land. Robert failed to do this - repeatedly.

I fail to see what your post has added to the debate by the way except hyperbole, veiled insults, snide comments and the reek of smug self superiority.

StewartGriffin · 22-03-2015 10:37PM

Moonriver99 wrote: »

all the narrow minded people will die with this generation

I like everything about your post Moonriver, but I fear this quote is very naieve. Sadly, it goes on, and on, and on, and on.....

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 10:39PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where did I refer to my career in this tread?
I haven't. Not once never mind your hyperbolic 'continually'.

Since you are so keen to comment on who said what it's interesting that you missed it was a poster other than myself who referred to my career.
No doubt you will now withdrawn your comment and apologise for your mistake seeing as you have set yourself up as the bastion of proper debating procedures.

Perhaps since you are casting your critical eye on other's debating styles you might care to comment on how Robert had continually failed to state why events before independence should have the slightest baring on a Referendum in 2015. I shan't hold my breathe waiting.

One doesn't need a career in academic history to disprove that Robert's 'intelligent' posts which refer to history are completely inaccurate. One simply needs to do some basic research beyond wikipedia and the more sensationalist versions of diddly iddely Oirishness. Or even, *gasp* employ intelligent critical analysis to issues such as how did the Catholic O'Connells own so much land if Catholics were banned from owning land. Robert failed to do this - repeatedly.

I fail to see what your post has added to the debate by the way except hyperbole, veiled insults, snide comments and the reek of smug self superiority.

Wrong I did make a reference but maybe you didn't see it.
The lands I own were taken off their catholic owners in the 1640s.
I haven't been able to find the records at which point the changeover from Protestant to catholic ownership was. However I know in the 1800s the land was in catholic ownership again.

storker · 22-03-2015 10:43PM

I'll be voting yes. I have no skin in the game, being heterosexual and already married, and I wouldn't feel right about denying people the ability to do something that doesn't affect me anyway. Despite hearing many claims that a yes vote will damage or weaken marriage, nobody I've questioned on it has been able to tell me how this damage will take place or what it will look like.

That said, I don't like it when accusations of homophobia are thrown shotgun fashion at dissenters. Not everyone who doesn't want single-sex marriage is a homophobe, although undoubtedly many are. Some people may misunderstand the consequences, some fear change, some will disagree on religious grounds. I think they're wrong, but people are entitled to be wrong without necessarily having their motives questioned. I think some intolerance (yes, seriously) and smugness on the part of some yes supporters could well backfire on polling day. Anyway, it's lazy debating. The case against same-sex marriage is, in my opinion, so weak that it's easy to argue against without resorting to name-calling.

Moonriver99 · 22-03-2015 10:43PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I like everything about your post Moonriver, but I fear this quote is very naieve. Sadly, it goes on, and on, and on, and on.....

I've seen longer post Stewart griffin. No I just believe in the goodness in people. It's not naive that we might one day live in a utopian nation. Probably not for centuries but one day. Call me naive, I call it optimism.

StewartGriffin · 22-03-2015 10:43PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where did I refer to my career in this tread?
I haven't. Not once never mind your hyperbolic 'continually'.

Since you are so keen to comment on who said what it's interesting that you missed it was a poster other than myself who referred to my career.
No doubt you will now withdrawn your comment and apologise for your mistake seeing as you have set yourself up as the bastion of proper debating procedures.

Perhaps since you are casting your critical eye on other's debating styles you might care to comment on how Robert had continually failed to state why events before independence should have the slightest baring on a Referendum in 2015. I shan't hold my breathe waiting.

One doesn't need a career in academic history to disprove that Robert's 'intelligent' posts which refer to history are completely inaccurate. One simply needs to do some basic research beyond wikipedia and the more sensationalist versions of diddly iddely Oirishness. Or even, *gasp* employ intelligent critical analysis to issues such as how did the Catholic O'Connells own so much land if Catholics were banned from owning land. Robert failed to do this - repeatedly.

I fail to see what your post has added to the debate by the way except hyperbole, veiled insults, snide comments and the reek of smug self superiority.

Okay, I apologise for that. It was unfair to you. I saw a post where you said don't cross swords with me on history and I regarded it as arrogant, I detest academic snobs, but I have no real evidence to assume you are one. Will edit my post accordingly.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 10:53PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yeah, no, I'm not buying that for a second. His posts come across as those of an intelligent person, which I'm sure he is. However, simply being intelligent does not make you an authority on anything you comment on, as we can clearly see here. On this topic he is clearly woefully misinformed, and more importantly, absolutely unwilling to listen to any evidence that goes against his worldview.

He has repeatedly made connections between gay people and pedophilia (the adoption of children for vile purposes is absolutely plausible; however the argument falls apart once you realize the same applies to straight couples). He makes pointless appeals to tradition, conveniently glossing over the fact that if everyone adopted this way of thinking nothing in the world would ever change. 'Traditional marriage' is a completely and utterly meaningless term in this context.

When called out on this, he essentially replied with 'yeah well I dont care about that', and yet you're holding up this guy as the paragon of rational intelligent debate in this thread? I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion. Perhaps the reason people treat his posts with contempt is the fact that he's repeated the same thibg over and over again without any attempt to engage in debate. I'm not saying those arguing against him have been perfect, I know I haven't been, but to claim he's seeking rational debate on this issue is laughable.

I have not made connections between gay people and paedophilia. I simply believe paedophiles with no records of abuse have an option to take advantage of gay people, as they did with the church, as they did in swimming and elsewhere.
If I hated people I could act like some do with the church with a sort of glee that the abuse happened and was/is a stick to beat the church with.
I don't want this stick to be used against anyone. Good people whether priests, gay people, swimming coaches shouldn't be beaten with a stick for something they would never do.
I just feel this stick is being made available to be used in the future and like hateful people towards the church, hateful people towards gay people will act the same way, which is totally wrong towards good people.
That is all, I want to be proven wrong in future decades, will be great if I am.
People hating other people is not going to go away, it is a horrible human trait that some have worst than others, I just fear this hate will be used against gay people as it has been against good priests.

Bannasidhe · 22-03-2015 11:05PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Okay, I apologise for that. It was unfair to you. I saw a post where you said don't cross swords with me on history and I regarded it as arrogant, I detest academic snobs, but I have no real evidence to assume you are one. Will edit my post accordingly.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I also detest academic snobs but not as much as I detest faux-history being peddled. Robert's comments on the Penal Laws were factually incorrect, although in line with the popular perception of them. In an effort to get him to consider the discrepancy between what he continually stated was the situation and the reality of the existance of very wealthy, educated, landowning, Catholics I raised the issue of Daniel O'Connell. Robert sadly did not pause to consider - he repeated the inaccuracies and employed 'it is said' as a source for the events of the 17th century. If I wished I could have given him chapter and verse about the slaughter of Protestants, major outbreak of Plague, Irish Catholic troops deployed in England against Cromwell etc etc. I didn't. I fired a shot across his bow to warn him he was about to stray into my 'specialist' subject and he may wish to reconsider that. Apparently he did.

If I were a car mechanic and corrected someone who was posting incorrect information would you have an issue with it?
Or a plumber?
Or a web developer?
Why have an issue when a poster is responding to a comment which happens to fall within the remit of their 'day job' if that day job is in academia?

marienbad · 22-03-2015 11:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have not made connections between gay people and paedophilia. I simply believe paedophiles with no records of abuse have an option to take advantage of gay people, as they did with the church, as they did in swimming and elsewhere.
If I hated people I could act like some do with the church with a sort of glee that the abuse happened and was/is a stick to beat the church with.
I don't want this stick to be used against anyone. Good people whether priests, gay people, swimming coaches shouldn't be beaten with a stick for something they would never do.
I just feel this stick is being made available to be used in the future and like hateful people towards the church, hateful people towards gay people will act the same way, which is totally wrong towards good people.
That is all, I want to be proven wrong in future decades, will be great if I am.
People hating other people is not going to go away, it is a horrible human trait that some have worst than others, I just fear this hate will be used against gay people as it has been against good priests.

Your intentions may be good but your logic is flawed , predators will take advantage wherever they can , that does not mean that activities are curtailed because of that, not swimming , scouting, priesthood, marriage- gay or straight. The same applies to the bullying argument.

You don't ban dining out for fear of food poisoning .

Moonriver99 · 22-03-2015 11:09PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have not made connections between gay people and paedophilia. I simply believe paedophiles with no records of abuse have an option to take advantage of gay people, as they did with the church, as they did in swimming and elsewhere.
If I hated people I could act like some do with the church with a sort of glee that the abuse happened and was/is a stick to beat the church with.
I don't want this stick to be used against anyone. Good people whether priests, gay people, swimming coaches shouldn't be beaten with a stick for something they would never do.
I just feel this stick is being made available to be used in the future and like hateful people towards the church, hateful people towards gay people will act the same way, which is totally wrong towards good people.
That is all, I want to be proven wrong in future decades, will be great if I am.
People hating other people is not going to go away, it is a horrible human trait that some have worst than others, I just fear this hate will be used against gay people as it has been against good priests.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned there are plenty of routes in which pedaphiles will try and get near to kids. If the person is bad, they are bad. There has already been thousands of abuse cases when gay marriage was not allowed. If pedaphiles infiltrate our communities it's not because of gay marriage, it's to do with that individual who is sick enough to allow it. They can be straight, gay etc. why don't you see that! No matter what you do, stopping the gay marriage(the majority who are good) will do nothing to stop child abuse, what will stop child abuse is vigilance and good people monitoring closely to ensure a child's safety. We all take everyone at face value but sometimes people can be bad. There is no sure fire way of knowing who's bad and who's good but once we know the bad we can do something about it then...but stopping gays marrying!?!!! You think that's the solution? What good is that gonna do? sorry, sir. But I have to say it's a very very narrow view. I hope I'm understanding your comment correctly and If I am I think you need to have some bit of sympathy with people who can't help their sexual orientation. They were born that way and deserve kids just like everyone else. And to be married. It's their life.

WoolyJumper · 22-03-2015 11:09PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have not made connections between gay people and paedophilia. I simply believe paedophiles with no records of abuse have an option to take advantage of gay people, as they did with the church, as they did in swimming and elsewhere.
If I hated people I could act like some do with the church with a sort of glee that the abuse happened and was/is a stick to beat the church with.
I don't want this stick to be used against anyone. Good people whether priests, gay people, swimming coaches shouldn't be beaten with a stick for something they would never do.
I just feel this stick is being made available to be used in the future and like hateful people towards the church, hateful people towards gay people will act the same way, which is totally wrong towards good people.
That is all, I want to be proven wrong in future decades, will be great if I am.
People hating other people is not going to go away, it is a horrible human trait that some have worst than others, I just fear this hate will be used against gay people as it has been against good priests.

Don't these paedophiles already have the option of taking advantage of straight people. I can find many more examples of straight couples involved in paedophile rings than gay couples. That isn't a valid argument against straight marriage, straight couples having kids or straight couples adopting. So I still don't understand why you felt the need to bring it up here.

Bannasidhe · 22-03-2015 11:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Wrong I did make a reference but maybe you didn't see it.
The lands I own were taken off their catholic owners in the 1640s.
I haven't been able to find the records at which point the changeover from Protestant to catholic ownership was. However I know in the 1800s the land was in catholic ownership again.

Robert.
Robert, Robert, Robert.
Lands were taken off people because they were Royalists not because they were Catholics. Land was taken off far more Protestants for exactly the same reason. The Duke of Ormond lost more than anyone else and he was a Protestant.
If the Irish Catholic Confederacy hadn't allied with the Duke of Ormond in the first place and sent 150,000 troops to England to fight for the king Cromwell would most likely have left Ireland alone but the land owning Catholics of Ireland insisted on raising armies to support a king who was no friend of theirs to fight against the elected Parliament who deposed him.

Now, let it go Robert. It's really not relevant to this debate but I would urge to to have a look at the articles in History Ireland - their back issues are available free on-line.

Zen65 · 22-03-2015 11:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have not made connections between gay people and paedophilia. I simply believe paedophiles with no records of abuse have an option to take advantage of gay people, as they did with the church, as they did in swimming and elsewhere.

That's just about the most dishonest comment I've seen from anyone here.

Firstly, if what you're saying is that we need to prevent all opportunities to stop paedophiles from taking advantage of situations we should not concern ourselves with SSM, but focus instead on eliminating new types of sport, or new religions, or new youth clubs.

But you don't post your "beware of paedophiles" warnings when somebody wants to set up a new sports club in the area, do you? You reserve it for SSM - despite the fact that SSM will not make any difference to the number of children raised in gay relationships. All it does is confer rights on the non-biological or non-adopting partner in the event of the adoptive parent dying.

BTW, the outrage in relation to the church and child abuse cases had little to do with paedophiles. Most reasonable adults know that there are paedophiles in all walks of life. The outrage is that the 'good people' in the churches protected the offenders at the expense of the victims.

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

Comments