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

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

1…140141143145146…325

Comments

  • #4262
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    bruschi wrote: »
    he was a priest who was a paedophile. He wasnt what Robert alleges happen, that he was a paedophile who said, oh I'll become a priest and I can get away with it unchallenged.

    So he was a paedophile before he entered the priesthood,it's rather important to highlight that.


  • #4263
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    fran17 wrote: »
    So he was a paedophile before he entered the priesthood,it's rather important to highlight that.

    no, thats pure deflection, and more important to highlight that. he did not enter the priest hood to try get away from being a paedophile, and its really, really poor form to use that as an excuse to deflect away from the church or that it was used as a means to get away with it in this case, like what was being alleged by Robert earlier. his first incidents of crimes of paedophilia came when he was in the priesthood, not the other way around. and not only is it pure deflection from the church, it is also deflection from a ridiculous point on this thread.


  • #4264
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    I would recommend a glance through user's history, bruschi...


  • #4265
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    fran17 wrote: »
    So he was a paedophile before he entered the priesthood,it's rather important to highlight that.

    I think it's important to highlight that young men (teenagers) who entered the priesthood were entering a regime where their sexual feelings were denied to them for life. Where sexual feelings were repressed to the extent that for many of these young men, they became damaged, IMO.

    Repressed sexual feelings have a habit of breaking out, don't they? Priests who became messed up by the (inhuman) strictures that were imposed on them had young children in their care and were left alone with them. To my mind, there is no chicken and egg scenario here. The regime of the priesthood did the damage - Children entered the priesthood, their sexuality was extraordinarily repressed, some became paedophiles by their access to children. It's not rocket science. Again, just my opinion though. I'm sure you have a different one.


  • #4266
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    golfball37 wrote: »
    I'm not homophobic but...


    And then what follows is the very definition of homophobia -

    believe marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman. I've no problem with CP's. I know a gay man who agrees with me and he's not homophobic either.
    In fact its very narrow minded to assume the black and white position of not in favour = homophobic.
    I think an approach like this in the campaign will stop a lot of people voting yes.


    It's a very black and white narrow minded position to assume that just because a person identifies as LGBT, that they couldn't be homophobic. I know plenty of people like that too.

    I don't think their opinion will make any difference to people voting either way tbh, people will base their voting on their own experiences, not those opinions of people they don't know.

    Anyone who thinks anyone can be swayed either way by a single lecture is a simpleton tbh, as it would take more than half an hour or even a thread on social media to change people's attitudes and prejudices they've grown up with all their lives in their own communities.


  • Advertisement
  • #4267
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Shrap wrote: »
    I think it's important to highlight that young men (teenagers) who entered the priesthood were entering a regime where their sexual feelings were denied to them for life. Where sexual feelings were repressed to the extent that for many of these young men, they became damaged, IMO.

    Repressed sexual feelings have a habit of breaking out, don't they? Priests who became messed up by the (inhuman) strictures that were imposed on them had young children in their care and were left alone with them. To my mind, there is no chicken and egg scenario here. The regime of the priesthood did the damage - Children entered the priesthood, their sexuality was extraordinarily repressed, some became paedophiles by their access to children. It's not rocket science. Again, just my opinion though. I'm sure you have a different one.


    I wasn't going to be drawn on the whole pedophile priests discussion as tbh it has fannyadams to do with the subject of the thread, but I have a fundamental disagreement with the above simply because it sounds like an excuse for pedophiles and people that abuse children. There is no excuse for an adult to abuse a child, and we shouldn't make any.

    Men whose sexuality was repressed had numerous other outlets for their sexual frustration before they would ever think to lay a hand on a child, and many of those men who abused children weren't sexually attracted to children, but sexual humiliation of children was used as a means to discipline those children. There's no question of course that pedophiles were pedophiles before they were ever priests, but not all pedophiles abused children either.

    You're right though, it's not rocket science to anyone that laying a hand on a child or a vulnerable person is wrong, but some people take advantage of the fact that if they think they will get away with it, they'll do it, and even when they're caught, they won't stop doing it until they're made to stop.

    That's why I personally feel disgusted by the covering up that people do, and still do, and the excuses that other people make for them.


  • #4268
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    fran17 wrote: »
    I'm here to clarify any point you need clarification on Kiwi,just ask.

    What is your argument? Because you're bouncing all over the place and not actually making any real points, and I'm finding it hard to keep up. Do you have an argument or are you just gonna use them all and hope one of them isn't challenged?


  • #4269
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    The whole paedophile debate has no place on this thread, and the Mods have given out warnings, Im surprised they havent stopped these posts .


  • #4270
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    His point is that a male paedo ring have used the cover of being married men to smuggle children through borders. The assumption being that if two men having a child was not the norm, they would be questioned about the child.

    A thought provoking point.

    What thoughts did it provoke in you? For me, it provoked the thought that this man will stoop to any low to try to justify his position. Say 'no' to SSM, but do not act to prevent any other means by which paedophiles might try to cover their actions? That's like saying "let's not allow coloured people into Ireland in case somebody decides to set up a paedophile ring using black people as a disguise" and then act indignant when the idea is called out for being purely racist!


  • #4271
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    The whole paedophile debate has no place on this thread, and the Mods have given out warnings, Im surprised they havent stopped these posts .


  • Advertisement
  • #4272
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    fran17 wrote: »
    However to attempt to equate divorce,sex out of wedlock or the non traditional family to a homosexual relationship is,I won't say laughable,but a complete fallacy and you must know that.It's chalk and cheese,apples and oranges.

    Really Fran?

    Can you explain that? Because I struggle to comprehend how you could arrive at such a bizarre conclusion. In effect you acknowledge that children who are raised by a single parent, for whatever reason, have just as much chance of turning out to be productive, happy members of society. But if the child is raised by a loving couple, then the child is only likely to be undamaged if the couple are not of the same sex?

    Surely to arrive at such an unlikely conclusion you must be able to point to a peer-reviewed study which supports that view?


  • #4273
    Moonriver99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 82 ✭✭Moonriver99


    I just really don't get people not voting in favour, you will be part of HISTORY as the people who denied people their human rights and liberties.

    WOW one day you will be part of history as that minority whom society won't believe existed because of their bigotry and prejudices. Just like blacks were once cornered and segregated...you guys voting against will be JUST as bad, and I will never see it any other way. Denying someone a RIGHT is shameful. You don't have to agree with it, but for god sake allow people to marry whom ever they want.

    I've known and heard hundreds of child abuse cases and from BOTH sides. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, you name it. I'd rather ANY family unit rather then a child abused. I guess this hurts me a lot that you guys exist, my sister is gay and has a gay partner and the two of them together will make great parents. You are treating them like crap, like they have no rights to do what you do. What on earth makes you better seriously????? How come you have rights and they don't???? and that question goes to EVERY ONE of you who will deny someone! sorry but it's pretty upsetting to know you will be someone who can enjoy rights and deny someone else. It is beyond shameful.


  • #4274
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fran17 wrote: »
    I'm here to clarify any point you need clarification on Kiwi,just ask.
    So your argument is that having legislation enacted which will create a same sex union/family and will categorically deny a child the right to a mother and father in his/her life is on a par with an unmarried mother/father or a divorce?That's your stance.

    Yes! And all of the above are also 'on par' with heterosexual married couples, whatever 'on par' is supposed to mean, I am assuming you mean 'equal' to. Of course they are equal to each other, why would one family be superior or inferior to another based on relationship status?

    Can you please explain why you think that gay couples are not 'on par' with any of the above?


  • #4275
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    floggg wrote: »
    What questions exactly am I avoiding btw?

    Did you get around to answering this one?

    Or this one?


  • #4276
    Tombi!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    Mod: drop the discussion of pedophilia. Cards are being handed out if it persists. It's not related to the topic at all.


  • #4277
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I would yes to remove civil marriage if I had the choice in a referendum.

    It seems (if I read your posts correctly) that you're happy to keep religious marriages, and unhappy to have civil marriages. Is that because you want to preserve the ideal of marriage discriminating against gays and lesbians?

    You will still get to discriminate all you want with church marriages.


  • #4278
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fran17 wrote: »
    I'm here to clarify any point you need clarification on Kiwi,just ask.
    So your argument is that having legislation enacted which will create a same sex union/family and will categorically deny a child the right to a mother and father in his/her life is on a par with an unmarried mother/father or a divorce?That's your stance.

    Actually Fran I want to address something else about this post. You seem to be indicating that you would prefer a single parent situation to a child having two parents of the same gender living together with the child. Why is that? Your argument at the moment seems to be that children have a 'basic human right' to have a mother and a father? But you would prefer a single parent family where there is no contact with one of the parents to a LGBT couple? Please explain.


  • #4279
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Zen65 wrote: »
    It seems (if I read your posts correctly) that you're happy to keep religious marriages, and unhappy to have civil marriages. Is that because you want to preserve the ideal of marriage discriminating against gays and lesbians?

    You will still get to discriminate all you want with church marriages.

    the issue of church marriage is irrelevant, it has no legal standing, the church could marry cats and dogs in the morning if it wanted to


  • #4280
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    BoatMad wrote: »
    the issue of church marriage is irrelevant, it has no legal standing, the church could marry cats and dogs in the morning if it wanted to

    Not same-sex cats and dogs though!


  • #4281
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Not same-sex cats and dogs though!

    oh i think it could probably rationalise that one too , if it wanted, probably claim they were of opposite sex, before the cat wanted to marry


  • Advertisement
  • #4282
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I wouldn't hold my breath

    No, I guess not.

    Fran17 likes to avoid answering questions, it seems.


  • #4283
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Then you are by definition homophobic .


    The fact is , a lot of people are secretly homophobic, these issues just expose their hypocrisy



    good, wouldn't want them to actually act against their predjuices and vote yes. ( none of these people will vote yes anyway )


    I'd be quote happy for them to vote Yes to be honest.

    And I have respect for any person who can recognise their prejudices and not seek to deny others rights because of them.


  • #4284
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    I'm here to clarify any point you need clarification on Kiwi,just ask.

    Pull the other one Fran.
    floggg wrote: »

    It's disappointing, but not surprising, that you ignored the substance of the test of my posts.

    But if it's as obvious as you say suggest that either same sex parenting is detrimental or inferior, or that being raised by heterosexual parents is advantageous for some reason, then you should be able to evidence why.

    What are the merits of heterosexual parents over same sex parents? What can they provide that a same sex couple can't, And why is that beneficial?

    Where are these unbiased academics you speak of?

    Where is the evidence of pain and mental anguish caused by being "denied" either a male or female influence.

    How does it manifest itself and in what cases?

    You claim these things as fact, but have you any evidence for them?
    fran17 wrote: »
    No excuse me,you cannot keep side stepping people's questions with a bunch of fallacies where every sentence ends with a question mark.Either converse with people properly or hit the road.


  • #4285
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    bruschi wrote: »
    no, thats pure deflection, and more important to highlight that. he did not enter the priest hood to try get away from being a paedophile, and its really, really poor form to use that as an excuse to deflect away from the church or that it was used as a means to get away with it in this case, like what was being alleged by Robert earlier. his first incidents of crimes of paedophilia came when he was in the priesthood, not the other way around. and not only is it pure deflection from the church, it is also deflection from a ridiculous point on this thread.
    Shrap wrote: »
    I think it's important to highlight that young men (teenagers) who entered the priesthood were entering a regime where their sexual feelings were denied to them for life. Where sexual feelings were repressed to the extent that for many of these young men, they became damaged, IMO.

    Repressed sexual feelings have a habit of breaking out, don't they? Priests who became messed up by the (inhuman) strictures that were imposed on them had young children in their care and were left alone with them. To my mind, there is no chicken and egg scenario here. The regime of the priesthood did the damage - Children entered the priesthood, their sexuality was extraordinarily repressed, some became paedophiles by their access to children. It's not rocket science. Again, just my opinion though. I'm sure you have a different one.

    This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and nothing but unsubstantiated speculation.

    In the absence of any real understanding of the causes of paedophilia, nobody here is any position to intelligently engage in this type of speculation, and it comes across as petty point scoring.

    Let's stick to the matter at hand shall we.


  • #4286
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    floggg wrote: »
    Let's stick to the matter at hand shall we.

    Fair enough, shouldn't have gone there at all about Fran's "which came first" scenario. Sorry all. A pointless post of mine.


  • #4287
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    bruschi wrote: »
    no, thats pure deflection, and more important to highlight that. he did not enter the priest hood to try get away from being a paedophile, and its really, really poor form to use that as an excuse to deflect away from the church or that it was used as a means to get away with it in this case, like what was being alleged by Robert earlier. his first incidents of crimes of paedophilia came when he was in the priesthood, not the other way around. and not only is it pure deflection from the church, it is also deflection from a ridiculous point on this thread.

    We seem to have crossed lines because I agree with you.Whomever this monster you speak of is did not enter the priesthood to get away from being a paedophile as he is a paedophile and that is the grounds which he should be dealt with.Similarly to a paedophile who happened to commit these most heinous of crimes as a musician,tv presenter or dj.I'm completely lost on what you think I'm trying to deflect,i only asked for some clarification:confused:


  • #4288
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Shrap wrote: »
    I think it's important to highlight that young men (teenagers) who entered the priesthood were entering a regime where their sexual feelings were denied to them for life. Where sexual feelings were repressed to the extent that for many of these young men, they became damaged, IMO.

    Repressed sexual feelings have a habit of breaking out, don't they? Priests who became messed up by the (inhuman) strictures that were imposed on them had young children in their care and were left alone with them. To my mind, there is no chicken and egg scenario here. The regime of the priesthood did the damage - Children entered the priesthood, their sexuality was extraordinarily repressed, some became paedophiles by their access to children. It's not rocket science. Again, just my opinion though. I'm sure you have a different one.

    No I actually agree with much of what your saying.


  • #4289
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Did you get around to answering this one?

    Or this one?

    Those questions should be directed at Fran "if I don't acknowledge the question I can't be shown up as wrong" 17, not me.


  • #4290
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    MOD: fran17 - do not post in this thread again


  • Advertisement
  • #4291
    Moonriver99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 82 ✭✭Moonriver99


    I'd just like to point out to people who say it will change the family unit...you do know single people can adopt....and they can be gay...the only difference would mean that if a gay couple got married there partner would adopt it if they chose to do so. Secondly, the family unit is no longer man, wife, son daughter..there are a LOT of lone parents out there, a lot of adopted children by one parent (gay or straight) and two parents. The family unit has changed. Gay people can already adopt, so using it as a reason to not vote yes is pointless.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement