Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

Someone give Kermit a shovel so he can dig a deeper hole for himself.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It follows therefore that children are not naturally gay either. In fact it is FAR more plausible to say they would have a natural instinct to be homophobic then to be "born" gay.

And this is why it's a load of nonsense to be talking about "changing attitudes" - not going to happen.

What? Changing attitudes not going to happen? Look around you, ask your parents what Ireland was like when they were growing up. Read a history book. Changing attitudes have already happened, it will keep happening. With everything, not just homosexuality.

You don't have to be an expert in sociology to see that attitudes of kids towards gay people in the 80s for example is vastly different to kids today. Kids who have been raised around homosexuals who are accepted and treated like everyone else don't even question whether its normal or not. I've seen this in my own life. My friend who had a gay uncle, never questioned or struggled with being gay when he was growing up, where as I who had no gay role models in my life, struggled for years.

Children's attitudes are a result of the environment they are raised in. From their parents, teachers, religion, society, media. That is far more plausible (and factual) than to say kids are born to be homophobic.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Is that what you were tying to say? Or who are the HB's you referred to?

It's probably a true statement.

Ummm I'm not with you here!

Is it fair that you can change my post like that and make something totally ridiculous appear to have come from me?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ah personal insults - the best sign you have lost the argument. I will merely repeat what I said that I suspect you can not counter.

On the one hand yes voters here are saying "oh but people are born gay" and the other hand "oh but they are definitely not born anti homosexual!"

They want their cake and they want to eat it. They want to ignore the fact it is far more likely the latter than the former. Denial.

My job is done. :cool:

I try not to get drawn into these kind of pointless arguments, but now and again I come across a statement so stupid/disingenuous that I can't help responding. Assuming you're not just trolling, I don't see how you could have failed to understand the analogy about the difference between skin colour and racism.

Terrlock wrote: »

To Vote yes is to deny God as you fail to trust in his teachings.

Jesus says to love others, that doesn't mean you agree with everyone's life choices.

Love the sinner, not the sin.

But if god didn't like homosexuality then why would he have created it in the first place?

abff wrote: »

I try not to get drawn into these kind of pointless arguments, but now and again I come across a statement so stupid/disingenuous that I can't help responding. Assuming you're not just trolling, I don't see how you could have failed to understand the analogy about the difference between skin colour and racism.

Yeah but what a compelling argument that isn't.

It's desperation. The point can not be countered. How can someone say with absolute certainty on the one hand that people are born gay (which incidentally is an impossibility to know) and then on the other in the same sentence that people are not born with a natural disposition against homosexuality?

Take off the rose tinted pink glasses and consider that proposition they are putting forward.

I think if Kermy can't wrap his brain around the skin colour/racism analogy then all is lost.

I pray that he is actually just a troll and there aren't actually people stupid enough in the world to think if you don't expose your son to femininity then he won't be gay? What if he has five sisters? Completely boggles the mind that somebody can think like this. Its depressing.

captbarnacles wrote: »

Anti-homosexual is obviously a new sexual orientation.

AHHHHHHHHHHH OK thought that was called been heterosexual or bi god I can't keep up with these new concepts the younuns are coming up with

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yeah but what a compelling argument that isn't.

It's desperation. The point can not be countered. How can someone say with absolute certainty on the one hand that people are born gay (which incidentally is an impossibility to know) and then on the other in the same sentence that people are not born with a natural disposition against homosexuality?

Take off the rose tinted pink glasses and consider that proposition they are putting forward.

Total comedy gold.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yeah but what a compelling argument that isn't.

It's desperation. The point can not be countered. How can someone say with absolute certainty on the one hand that people are born gay (which incidentally is an impossibility to know) and then on the other in the same sentence that people are not born with a natural disposition against homosexuality?

Take off the rose tinted pink glasses and consider that proposition they are putting forward.

I can have an irrational hatred against red-headed women that is learned. That does not mean that people cannot be born naturally with red hair.

What about this are you not getting?

Happy to provide some balance to the debate. This thread is like the George on a Friday night.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Happy to provide some balance to the debate. This thread is like the George on a Friday night.

Do you think kids have an automatic racist reaction ?