Gay Rights

Mia belle · 02-03-2006 5:23pm

Oh right, well yes, myself and my husband did want a family, but if we had thought at any stage we couldn't raise an adopted child then we would not have gone ahead. In that respect the needs of the children we did adopt came first, and of course still do.

coffee_cake · 02-03-2006 5:26pm

In the Bible (no im not very religious) God blows up two cities because they accept gays.

Their crimes were mostly inhospitality and rape.

Freelancer · 02-03-2006 5:30pm

Firespinner wrote:

What I meant was, crudely, who gets the headaches? (if it is you, then im sorry)

And what you, crudely, are talking out of your ass. You really seem to have an understanding of relationships and sex that spawns from the 50s. Sexual drives are more complex. The suggestion that gay men would be at it in front of the children because "gh huh guys like sex", if followed to it's logical conclusion means lesbians sit on the couch chastily knitting*, is frankly idiotic

*unless this is true which would mean porno has been lying to us all these years :eek:

In the Bible (no im not very religious) God blows up two cities because they accept gays.

Actually he lays waste to Soddam and Gormorah because they are sinful not because they "accept gays"

What was the point of your raising of this fairy tale?

Of course, how silly of me, I forgot about all the fat bashings, tall bashings, glasses bashing! I forgot that there are organisations that picket the funerals of fat people who die of diabetes.

Theres one church in the US that pickets the funeral of homosexuals, they're also so nuts they picket the funerals of american servicemen as well.

Again, what evidence do you offer that children of homosexual couples would face serious peril? We're not in Rural Kentucky, we're in Ireland and homophobic assaults aren't common.

Personal comment. I'd say that was beneath you but you've done this in other forums. It has nothing to do with my outrage (I don't care that strongly, it is to do with children in danger.

Well deserved personal comments you've made some profoundly offensive and ill thought out comments on this thread which would suggest a serious degree of homophobia lurks beneath those Helen Lovejoy cries of, "oh won't someone please think of the children."

Of course, anyone who acknowledges that racism exists must be in the Klan. Grow up.

How is that a rebuttal of this;

Freelancer wrote:

Are you really honestly suggesting that you would endanger the life of a child because she or he is adopted by gay couples?:

Ohhh I get it, you took "you" personally, when I was refering to the generic.

So again are you really honestly siggesting that it would endanger the life of a child because she or he is adopted by gay couples?

Because where is your proof?

They have Garda to protect them now.

Yeah theres a ring of Garda required to ensure the patrons of the George can go home safetly :rolleyes:*

What rot are really suggesting that public mood is Dublin is that but from the Lads in store street, and pearse street, the George, Out on the Liffey, and half a dozen other gay venues would burst up in flames, in front of an angry mob?

Homophobic assaults are uncommon but do occur , and will go on occuring as long as people make absurd links between paedophilia and homosexuality........

*at least thats what the bloke in the uniform said, his friends the plumber and the red indian agreed

coffee_cake · 02-03-2006 5:37pm

If people are so concerned about children being picked on for being in a "not normal" home, then how is refusing to let gay couples adopt because it's not normal going to send a different message to children? Gay couples are ok but they're not really so don't let them do anything that isn't normal because it isn't normal?

I have yet to see any evidence from you all for children growing up "warped" as a result of growing up with gay parents, not even anything anecdotal which HAS been produced in favour of gay adoption.
All I hear against it is personal squeamishness.

Dudess · 02-03-2006 5:49pm

Firespinner wrote:

In the Bible (no im not very religious) God blows up two cities because they accept gays.

In the Bible (Leviticus), slavery is endorsed...

Dudess · 02-03-2006 6:01pm

rsynnott wrote:

By the way, 'gays' is a somewhat pejorative term; please don't use it. Would you say 'blacks' or 'jews'? (Actually, a lot of people do say 'jews'; they probably shouldn't.)

With respect, rsynnott, I think you're going a bit overboard on the political correctness here. Yeah, I would say "blacks". It's a lot better than that revolting term "coloured". Black people refer to themselves as blacks, just like white people refer to themselves as whites. And why not use the term "Jews"? That's simply what Jewish people are. Similarly with the term "gays". I know it can sound a little coarse so I wouldn't use it myself, but it's hardly offensive. Why marginalise groups even further by insisting on care being taken with the language one uses to refer to them?

The_Minister · 02-03-2006 6:45pm

Freelancer wrote:

And what you, crudely, are talking out of your ass. You really seem to have an understanding of relationships and sex that spawns from the 50s. Sexual drives are more complex. The suggestion that gay men would be at it in front of the children because "gh huh guys like sex",

I have talked to gays who have said that this is basically it. I didn't mean in front of the children (any set of parents would cause a bucket of trauma with that), but that since statistically most attacks are men on boys, then even if one says that paedos and gays are two seperate sexualities, you have doubled that childs risk.

Freelancer wrote:

if followed to it's logical conclusion means lesbians sit on the couch chastily knitting*, is frankly idiotic

*unless this is true which would mean porno has been lying to us all these years :eek:

Freelancer wrote:

Actually he lays waste to Soddam and Gormorah because they are sinful not because they "accept gays"

What was the point of your raising of this fairy tale?

Read the story. They get blown up cause they try to have gay sex with someone who happens to be an angel (but they don't know that). Most biblical scholars (I don't know how I know this and you don't since i'm not religious) agree that the sin was sodomy. The ban on gays is reiterated several times. One is plain enough to say that man shall not lie with man, as man shall lie with woman.

Freelancer wrote:

Theres one church in the US that pickets the funeral of homosexuals, they're also so nuts they picket the funerals of american servicemen as well.

Yes they are nuts but they still exist.

Freelancer wrote:

Again, what evidence do you offer that children of homosexual couples would face serious peril? We're not in Rural Kentucky, we're in Ireland and homophobic assaults aren't common.

I was under the impression that we had loads of these attacks.

Freelancer wrote:

Well deserved personal comments you've made some profoundly offensive and ill thought out comments on this thread which would suggest a serious degree of homophobia lurks beneath those Helen Lovejoy cries of, "oh won't someone please think of the children."

Second personal comment. Hate to tell you this but you are meant to avoid them. Did it occur to you that since I couldn't give a crap if they can leave stuff to each other or visit each other in hospital that maybe I am concerned about the children?

Freelancer wrote:

So again are you really honestly siggesting that it would endanger the life of a child because she or he is adopted by gay couples?

Suggesting. Not nessacerily endanger just psychologically scar.

Freelancer wrote:

Yeah theres a ring of Garda required to ensure the patrons of the George can go home safetly :rolleyes:*

There is a Garda presence.

Freelancer wrote:

What rot are really suggesting that public mood is Dublin is that but from the Lads in store street, and pearse street, the George, Out on the Liffey, and half a dozen other gay venues would burst up in flames, in front of an angry mob?

No but I'm saying alot of people will but the boot in if they get them alone.

Freelancer wrote:

Homophobic assaults are uncommon but do occur , and will go on occuring as long as people make absurd links between paedophilia and homosexuality........

It is not absurd as there is little to say they are seperate. Many paedophiles have sex with adults as well which suggests that it is more a subsexuality rather than a seperate one.

Freelancer wrote:

*at least thats what the bloke in the uniform said, his friends the plumber and the red indian agreed

LOL

Freelancer · 02-03-2006 7:29pm

Firespinner wrote:

I have talked to gays who have said that this is basically it. I didn't mean in front of the children (any set of parents would cause a bucket of trauma with that),

You've talked to many "gays" have you? I have this vision of you walking up to people at pride and saying "so do you guys, like do it, like, y'know, alot?"

You're frankly embarssing yourself at this point with your suggestions about adult sexuality and sex drives, give over. You've nothing of substance it back up this suggestion.

but that since statistically most attacks are men on boys, then even if one says that paedos and gays are two seperate sexualities, you have doubled that childs risk.

What? Seriously? "Double the risk" do you have any idea what you are talking about? I'll say again, the myth that there is a link paedophilia and homosexuality is an outrageous lie.

Are you seriously suggesting that because someone has two dads they're statistically more likely to abused because theres more men in their lives?

Utterly absurd.........

Firespinner we're laughing at you, you look stupid when you join in.

Read the story. They get blown up cause they try to have gay sex with someone who happens to be an angel (but they don't know that). Most biblical scholars (I don't know how I know this and you don't since i'm not religious) agree that the sin was sodomy.

Whats your point do you believe homosexuality is a sin and wrong?

And two pages ago you didn't even know what Sodom and Gomorrah was called and now you're telling us what the accepted biblical scholar view of this chapter in gensis is;

For the record

In Genesis 18, God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of its gross immorality

and

Traditional theologians and bible scholars accept that the sins of Sodom were homosexuality and rape. However, these were not the only sins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Biblical scholars debate the proper English interpretation of this passage. Some scholars feel that the "strange flesh" is a reference to homosexuality, while other scholars feel that the "strange flesh" involved refers to bestiality

Abraham found one decent man in the city Lott, the angel came to him, the townsmen came for the angel, so "God" planned to destroy Gomorrah for undefined gross immorality, one of which is Sodomy, you have the sequence of events wrong.

Oh and Lott fine bloke that he was, refused to give them the angel, but offered the crowd his two daughters to be gang raped instead. This is the decent soul god wanted to save, kinda says a lot about old testament morality and how little should be drawn from this sorry chapter in the big book o crap.

So you're half right. Although what the above myth has to do with why homosexuals cannot adopt I don't know.

The ban on gays is reiterated several times. One is plain enough to say that man shall not lie with man, as man shall lie with woman.

The bible suggests many things, I could stone you for working on the sabbath, I can lie with my maid if my wife is barren, and I have to stone you if you plant seeds from two different crops in the same field. Should I, do these as well? Suggesting the bible be the literally code of practice and morality is just plan dumb.

Whats your point in raising the above, I ask you again?

Yes they are nuts but they still exist.

Yeah. So. And. What?

Do we allow "nuts" to decide what is and what isn't acceptable in society, to decide what is right and wrong? Do we pander to the lowest common denominator? Are you saying we shouldn't allow gay couples to adopt because there are intolerant assholes in the world?

I was under the impression that we had loads of these attacks.

Well what you don't know.....

Yes unfortunately they do happen and to a greater degree in "happy tolerance love and joy land" Northern Ireland.

But to suggest that these random infrequent assaults as justification to stop gay adoptions is scaremongering of the most inane and idiotic kind.

Second personal comment. Hate to tell you this but you are meant to avoid them. Did it occur to you that since I couldn't give a crap if they can leave stuff to each other or visit each other in hospital that maybe I am concerned about the children?

Yeah, see, then why bring Sodom and Gomorrah and why it's a sin for another man to lie with another into this then?

Suggesting. Not nessacerily endanger just psychologically scar.

So we can drop your claims about bashing. Kids get teased and bullied over all kinds of stuff, why would the bullying over how many dads or mums you have been any worse than other kinds of teasing?

There is a Garda presence.

Are you honestly really seriously telling me there is a Garda presence to specifically protect the gay community in dublin?

No but I'm saying alot of people will but the boot in if they get them alone.

And that claim is not borne out of reality. Hey alot of people will put the boot into anyone on a saturday night. Be it because they're gay, or have chips, or looked at me bird funny. Are you really suggesting that theres a commuity of law abiding citizens who would never assault anyone; unless they're gay?

It is not absurd as there is little to say they are seperate. Many paedophiles have sex with adults as well which suggests that it is more a subsexuality rather than a seperate one.

And when homosexuality was illegal, plenty of gay men had wives and children. Not bi, gay. Your work into exploring sexual hang up and drives continues at the same high standard we've come to expect from you.

Paedophilia is a separate sexual identity, your insistence that there are "gay" paedophiles who have sex with boys, and "straight" paedophiles who have sex with girls is both tedious and abhorant.

LOL

:rolleyes:

Dudess · 02-03-2006 7:38pm

Freelancer wrote:

I worked on a news story last night, it involved transcribing death threats that an ordinary teenage girl got from her classmates. Don't tell me some people need a reason to hate, theres enough people with generic hate to go around.

Whats your point? Kids mimic racist comments from parents. Not to mention religious bigotry, should we make allowance for this?

Children will target any weakness or difference is my point, be it the weird food the islamic kids in my christian brother school ate (they had no choice re school), and we didn't even know what muslims were, they just looked funny and ate strange food.

Should we not allow gay people to adopt for no good reason other than some people won't like it? Not because its wrong but because there's prejudice against it? What message is that?

Points duly noted. Am I being naive when I suggest that society will become more tolerant in the future? I mean, our generations are a hell of a lot more tolerant than previous ones.

Freelancer · 02-03-2006 8:16pm

Dudess wrote:

Points duly noted. Am I being naive when I suggest that society will become more tolerant in the future? I mean, our generations are a hell of a lot more tolerant than previous ones.

We had a tranny presenting telly bingo and a lesbian doing daytime telly, not to mention a host of gay bars, a couple of gay newspapers, and gay pride marches, and gay weddings in the north.

We're doing fantasticaly well and maturing nicely, Firespinner's absurd claims ranting about church's in kentucky, is just hogwash

Yes there are pockets of bigotry and hatred but they should not be pandered to and society should not fall prey to the lowest common denominator.

Dudess · 02-03-2006 8:33pm

A major problem is the prevailing notion of what "family" means. A mum, dad, x amount of kids is a social construct, an ideal. We gotta lose this simplistic idea.

Freelancer · 02-03-2006 9:24pm

Dudess wrote:

A major problem is the prevailing notion of what "family" means. A mum, dad, x amount of kids is a social construct, an ideal. We gotta lose this simplistic idea.

We've already half way gone there, with some many marriages breaking up, and re marriages, and single mum's the "traditional" family unit is disappearing. Friends often take on the roles extented family used to and people are more accepting and understanding of "less normal" family units.

Now someone like Firespinner or Patzer will say that its a bad idea people need a male and female rolemodel, plenty of friends of mine have come from non nuclear families and turned out fine.

The_Minister · 02-03-2006 10:35pm

Freelancer wrote:

Now someone like Firespinner or Patzer will say that its a bad idea people need a male and female rolemodel, plenty of friends of mine have come from non nuclear families and turned out fine.

Most of the ones that I know have major hang-ups. One gets my award as Worlds biggest gimp. And yes some are my friends.

Freelancer wrote:

Yes there are pockets of bigotry and hatred but they should not be pandered to and society should not fall prey to the lowest common denominator.

I said this already you cannot put children in danger for political reasons. It is the lowest thing you can do.

Mia belle · 02-03-2006 10:52pm

Children need a loving and nurturing home, I honestly don't think it matters who is doing the parenting, ie: same sex/single/married couple, once that child is loved and cared for. I don't think good parenting is influenced by sexual orientation. A same sex couple who wishes to adopt would have to prove their commitment to each other, their understanding of raising an adoptive child plus many more issues, to a social worker before they were approved. Adoptive parents don't decide to adopt, the social workers decide who to approve, so only those fully committed will be able to procede. Unfortunately I don't see same sex adoptions happening in Ireland. Even if it became legal here couples must adopt internationally and must go by the laws of the country they are adopting from, many of these countries would not allow same sex adoptions.

The_Minister · 02-03-2006 10:57pm

Freelancer wrote:

You've talked to many "gays" have you? I have this vision of you walking up to people at pride and saying "so do you guys, like do it, like, y'know, alot?"

Did it ever occur to you that I might have gay friends?

Freelancer wrote:

You're frankly embarssing yourself at this point with your suggestions about adult sexuality and sex drives, give over. You've nothing of substance it back up this suggestion.

Its not my fault if you can't get it up.

Freelancer wrote:

What? Seriously? "Double the risk" do you have any idea what you are talking about? I'll say again, the myth that there is a link paedophilia and homosexuality is an outrageous lie.

In your immortal words "prove it"

Freelancer wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that because someone has two dads they're statistically more likely to abused because theres more men in their lives?

Utterly absurd.........

How? The statistics bare it out

Freelancer wrote:

Firespinner we're laughing at you, you look stupid when you join in.

Funny how I don't feel the need to respond to this

Freelancer wrote:

Whats your point do you believe homosexuality is a sin and wrong?

People were slagging religious people and I felt that many were simply ignoring why they feel this way.

Freelancer wrote:

And two pages ago you didn't even know what Sodom and Gomorrah was called and now you're telling us what the accepted biblical scholar view of this chapter in gensis is;

I did know the names but I will admit that I was unsure how to spell Gomorrah.

Freelancer wrote:

Traditional theologians and bible scholars accept that the sins of Sodom were homosexuality and rape. However, these were not the only sins:

They were the main ones.

Freelancer wrote:

Oh and Lott fine bloke that he was, refused to give them the angel, but offered the crowd his two daughters to be gang raped instead. This is the decent soul god wanted to save, kinda says a lot about old testament morality and how little should be drawn from this sorry chapter in the big book o crap.

Again, not my beliefs but there is no need to call it the big book o crap

Freelancer wrote:

So you're half right. Although what the above myth has to do with why homosexuals cannot adopt I don't know.

Its to disprove all those posters who said that "the bible is about love" etc.

Freelancer wrote:

The bible suggests many things, I could stone you for working on the sabbath, I can lie with my maid if my wife is barren, and I have to stone you if you plant seeds from two different crops in the same field. Should I, do these as well? Suggesting the bible be the literally code of practice and morality is just plan dumb.

It is a code of practice. Things that were nessacery for society were made religious law by the prophets ie. you are not allowed eat meat with blood in it. Since primitive people would not accept this on hygiene grounds it was made religeous. (This obviously excludes Genisis)

Freelancer wrote:

Do we allow "nuts" to decide what is and what isn't acceptable in society, to decide what is right and wrong? Do we pander to the lowest common denominator? Are you saying we shouldn't allow gay couples to adopt because there are intolerant assholes in the world?

Do we allow people to travel with no passports despite terrorism? Do we send no guards to O'Connell street? Like it or not bastards do affect our actions and I say again you cannot use children to fight them.

Freelancer wrote:

Yes unfortunately they do happen and to a greater degree in "happy tolerance love and joy land" Northern Ireland.

But to suggest that these random infrequent assaults as justification to stop gay adoptions is scaremongering of the most inane and idiotic kind.

See above. If grown adults choose to take the regrettable risks then fine but children should not be endangered.

Freelancer wrote:

So we can drop your claims about bashing. Kids get teased and bullied over all kinds of stuff, why would the bullying over how many dads or mums you have been any worse than other kinds of teasing?

I already answered this.

Freelancer wrote:

Are you honestly really seriously telling me there is a Garda presence to specifically protect the gay community in dublin?

Yes. They always have a few guards near there to stop trouble from certain elements.

Freelancer wrote:

And that claim is not borne out of reality. Hey alot of people will put the boot into anyone on a saturday night. Be it because they're gay, or have chips, or looked at me bird funny. Are you really suggesting that theres a commuity of law abiding citizens who would never assault anyone; unless they're gay?

I think gays are more at risk.

Freelancer wrote:

Paedophilia is a separate sexual identity, your insistence that there are "gay" paedophiles who have sex with boys, and "straight" paedophiles who have sex with girls is both tedious and abhorant.

There is little evidence to say that they are seperate.

Mia belle · 02-03-2006 11:19pm

Hetrosexual or homosexual preference is an adult attraction to other adults, pedophilia is an adult attraction to children( male or female) For anyone interested, it is possible for same sex couples to foster in Ireland.

Freelancer · 02-03-2006 11:35pm

Firespinner wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that I might have gay friends?

And who are they "the Gays?" You don't have gay friends.

Its not my fault if you can't get it up.

Oh what was that about personal insults............

Look your views about sex and women clearly show you know little about either. That absurd women are the ones who put a stop on sex prove it.....

In your immortal words "prove it"

Happily

Pedophilia (Am. English), or paedophilia (Commonwealth English), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children. A person characterized by pedophilia is called a pedophile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia

How? The statistics bare it out

Really what statistics? Where?

Following that logic through you'd have no problems with lesbians adopting? But hmmmm what if one of the lesbians had lots of uncles?

See to take this through to its conclusion you're essentially saying "more close men in a childs live means a greater chance to be abused." Are we to ban men from roles like scout leaders? Teachers? Because this is your logic......

People were slagging religious people and I felt that many were simply ignoring why they feel this way.

Not answering the question, do you think homosexuality is a sin?

I did know the names but I will admit that I was unsure how to spell Gomorrah.

Sure, course you did.

They were the main ones.

Thats nice, I'll ask again what does Sodom and Gormorah have to do with homosexuals adopting children?

Again, not my beliefs but there is no need to call it the big book o crap

You're talking about a story about a Sinful town and how a god allowed a man to offer his children to be raped to spare an angel and you don't think thats horse****?

Its to disprove all those posters who said that "the bible is about love" etc.

Uh what? You are literally talking gibberish, someone said "god help us" and you brought up S&G, WHY?

It is a code of practice. Things that were nessacery for society were made religious law by the prophets ie. you are not allowed eat meat with blood in it. Since primitive people would not accept this on hygiene grounds it was made religeous. (This obviously excludes Genisis)

The inference of the above is you think that banning homosexuality was necessary for society, due to the bibles code of practice.

Do we allow people to travel with no passports despite terrorism? Do we send no guards to O'Connell street? Like it or not bastards do affect our actions and I say again you cannot use children to fight them.

No one is saying that though, people should be allowed adopt because they want children, no one is trying to use children as a politcal football, this is more delusions on your part.

See above. If grown adults choose to take the regrettable risks then fine but children should not be endangered.

Again your language, you think homosexuality is a "regretable" risk. Are you also suggesting mixed race couples shouldn't have children because the offspring might be racial abused as well?

I already answered this.

You've yet to prove any child would be put in danger. I defy you to.

Yes. They always have a few guards near there to stop trouble from certain elements.

This is just a lie. Period. You cannot prove this, have no way of knowing this. Theres a police presence in city center none of it is specifically in place to protect gay establishments. The lack of graffiti or vandalism outside these places would confirm my opinion. Police aren't always going to be there, yet these establishments aren't atttacked.

I think gays are more at risk.

Again any evidence anything at all?

There is little evidence to say that they are seperate.

I sincerely doubt you've even looked at a piece of evidence just come to some conclusion and announced "theres little evidence......"

"The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)."

Andrea Harris
Sex with little boys is not homosexuality. Some homosexuals commit paedophilia. Some heterosexuals commit paedophilia. It is not a sexual orientation issue. Paedophilia is about power and control and the perception of unconditional love.

And the seminal report by Abel and Harlow;

Alfred E. Kinsey, in his landmark study of male sexuality, divided adult sexual interest into seven categories: three categories of homosexuality, one category of bi-sexuality, and three categories of heterosexuality. The Abel and Harlow study used this "Kinsey Scale" in its questions about adult sexual preference.

The 1,038 men who molested boys reported a range of adult sexual preferences. Contrary to popular belief, only 8 percent reported that they were exclusively homosexualwho molest boys followed the general pattern of the U.S. male population in regard to their adult sexual preferences. 51 percent said they were hetrosexual in their adult relationships. An additional 19 percent reported they were predominately heterosexual, while yet another 9 percent said they were equally heterosexual and homosexual in their adult sex life. As with other characteristics, the group of 1,038 men who molest boys followed the general pattern of the U.S. male population in regard to their adult sexual preferences. (emphasis mine)

Freelancer · 02-03-2006 11:41pm

Firespinner wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that I might have gay friends?

And who are they "the Gays?" You don't have gay friends.

Its not my fault if you can't get it up.

Oh what was that about personal insults............

Look your views about sex and women clearly show you know little about either. That absurd women are the ones who put a stop on sex prove it.....

In your immortal words "prove it"

Happily

Pedophilia (Am. English), or paedophilia (Commonwealth English), is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children. A person characterized by pedophilia is called a pedophile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia

How? The statistics bare it out

Really what statistics? Where?

Following that logic through you'd have no problems with lesbians adopting? But hmmmm what if one of the lesbians had lots of uncles?

See to take this through to its conclusion you're essentially saying "more close men in a childs live means a greater chance to be abused." Are we to ban men from roles like scout leaders? Teachers? Because this is your logic......

People were slagging religious people and I felt that many were simply ignoring why they feel this way.

Not answering the question, do you think homosexuality is a sin?

I did know the names but I will admit that I was unsure how to spell Gomorrah.

Sure, course you did.

They were the main ones.

Thats nice, I'll ask again what does Sodom and Gormorah have to do with homosexuals adopting children?

Again, not my beliefs but there is no need to call it the big book o crap

You're talking about a story about a Sinful town and how a god allowed a man to offer his children to be raped to spare an angel and you don't think thats horse****?

Its to disprove all those posters who said that "the bible is about love" etc.

Uh what? You are literally talking gibberish, someone said "god help us" and you brought up S&G, WHY?

It is a code of practice. Things that were nessacery for society were made religious law by the prophets ie. you are not allowed eat meat with blood in it. Since primitive people would not accept this on hygiene grounds it was made religeous. (This obviously excludes Genisis)

The inference of the above is you think that banning homosexuality was necessary for society, due to the bibles code of practice.

Do we allow people to travel with no passports despite terrorism? Do we send no guards to O'Connell street? Like it or not bastards do affect our actions and I say again you cannot use children to fight them.

No one is saying that though, people should be allowed adopt because they want children, no one is trying to use children as a politcal football, this is more delusions on your part.

See above. If grown adults choose to take the regrettable risks then fine but children should not be endangered.

Again your language, you think homosexuality is a "regretable" risk. Are you also suggesting mixed race couples shouldn't have children because the offspring might be racial abused as well?

I already answered this.

You've yet to prove any child would be put in danger. I defy you to.

Yes. They always have a few guards near there to stop trouble from certain elements.

This is just a lie. Period. You cannot prove this, have no way of knowing this. Theres a police presence in city center none of it is specifically in place to protect gay establishments. The lack of graffiti or vandalism outside these places would confirm my opinion. Police aren't always going to be there, yet these establishments aren't atttacked.

I think gays are more at risk.

Again any evidence anything at all?

There is little evidence to say that they are seperate.

I sincerely doubt you've even looked at a piece of evidence just come to some conclusion and announced "theres little evidence......"

"The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)."

Andrea Harris
Sex with little boys is not homosexuality. Some homosexuals commit paedophilia. Some heterosexuals commit paedophilia. It is not a sexual orientation issue. Paedophilia is about power and control and the perception of unconditional love.

And the seminal report by Abel and Harlow;

Alfred E. Kinsey, in his landmark study of male sexuality, divided adult sexual interest into seven categories: three categories of homosexuality, one category of bi-sexuality, and three categories of heterosexuality. The Abel and Harlow study used this "Kinsey Scale" in its questions about adult sexual preference.

The 1,038 men who molested boys reported a range of adult sexual preferences. Contrary to popular belief, only 8 percent reported that they were exclusively homosexual in their adult preferences. The majority of the men who molested boys (51 percent) described themselves as exclusively heterosexual in their adult partner preferences.An additional 19 percent reported they were predominately heterosexual, while yet another 9 percent said they were equally heterosexual and homosexual in their adult sex life. As with other characteristics, the group of 1,038 men who molest boys followed the general pattern of the U.S. male population in regard to their adult sexual preferences. (emphasis mine)

rsynnott · 03-03-2006 1:39am

Dudess wrote:

With respect, rsynnott, I think you're going a bit overboard on the political correctness here. Yeah, I would say "blacks". It's a lot better than that revolting term "coloured". Black people refer to themselves as blacks, just like white people refer to themselves as whites. And why not use the term "Jews"? That's simply what Jewish people are. Similarly with the term "gays". I know it can sound a little coarse so I wouldn't use it myself, but it's hardly offensive. Why marginalise groups even further by insisting on care being taken with the language one uses to refer to them?

I'd say "black people, Jewish people, gay people" myself. The adjective is simply a (partial) description, not a definition.

Firespinner wrote:

then even if one says that paedos and gays are two seperate sexualities, you have doubled that childs risk.

* shakes head*

Read the story. They get blown up cause they try to have gay sex with someone who happens to be an angel (but they don't know that). Most biblical scholars (I don't know how I know this and you don't since i'm not religious) agree that the sin was sodomy. The ban on gays is reiterated several times. One is plain enough to say that man shall not lie with man, as man shall lie with woman.

That could simply be a matter of sexual positions

Seriously, though, the passage in question is in Leviticus, a book full of the most incredible nonsense. Among other things, did you know you're not allowed wear clothes of mixed fabrics?

I was under the impression that we had loads of these attacks.

As far as I know, you'd be wrong. Yes, they happen, just as racially motivated attacks and various other attacks by the 'braindead bigot' sector happen. It isn't as if it's 10 a night though.

It is not absurd as there is little to say they are seperate. Many paedophiles have sex with adults as well which suggests that it is more a subsexuality rather than a seperate one.

And, in fact, this is one of the many places where your argument breaks down; there seems to be little evidence to suggest that many of the men who go after boys (or girls) are, adult-ly homosexual. Most child sex abusers are heterosexual, in the family (most often the father), and married.

Freelancer wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that because someone has two dads they're statistically more likely to abused because theres more men in their lives?

Actually, strictly speaking he's probably right, as the second male is replacing a female who's rather unlikely to abuse (sex abuse by females is known, but highly unusual). As such, we should naturally ban people from having male relatives.

Freelancer wrote:

Do we allow "nuts" to decide what is and what isn't acceptable in society, to decide what is right and wrong? Do we pander to the lowest common denominator?

Many people over in the Dublin Riots threads would give a resounding 'yes', oddly enough.

Firespinner wrote:

I said this already you cannot put children in danger for political reasons. It is the lowest thing you can do.

Put them in danger? Is this your thing about gay bashing again? Should we ban adoption by Protestants or Catholics or whichever sect is currently topping the being-blown-up sweepstakes in NI?

Firespinner wrote:

In your immortal words "prove it"

You're the one making the extraordinary claim.

Firespinner wrote:

People were slagging religious people and I felt that many were simply ignoring why they feel this way.

The hang-ups of people who believe in any random mythology are of no concern to me, and in our secular society they should be of no concern to anybody, at least on a legislative basis. I could go out in the morning and found a religion which demanded the stoning of people with green eyes; I would hopefully be ignored.

Firespinner wrote:

They were the main ones.

Possibly the rape was a tiny bit more significant than the homosexuality?

Firespinner wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that I might have gay friends?

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

AngryBadger · 03-03-2006 1:56am

I'd like the question to be clarified. If we're talking about marraige and so on, then absolutely. But if we're talking about children, then i don't think so.

rsynnott · 03-03-2006 2:10am

AngryBadger wrote:

I'd like the question to be clarified. If we're talking about marraige and so on, then absolutely. But if we're talking about children, then i don't think so.

Read the original post; it's quite clear.

Freelancer · 03-03-2006 11:44am

Freelancer wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that because someone has two dads they're statistically more likely to abused because there's more men in their lives?

rysnnot wrote:

Actually, strictly speaking he's probably right, as the second male is replacing a female who's rather unlikely to abuse (sex abuse by females is known, but highly unusual). As such, we should naturally ban people from having male relatives.

Pretty much what I said, the point firespinner is trying to make is that "because Timmy has two dads, Timmy is twice as likely to be abused". An inane suggestion, because hey if Tommy and a mom and dad, and Tommy's mom has five uncles, Tommy "statistically"* is more likely to be abused.

Would would suggest firespinner would only be happy if children are raised on the island of Lesbos.

*he keeps using the term statistically, I feel like I'm in the Princess Bride, "you keep using that word I do not think it means what you think it means" Because no statatician worth a damn has drawn up such figures.....

The_Minister · 03-03-2006 12:07pm

Freelancer wrote:

And who are they "the Gays?" You don't have gay friends.

Yes I do. Get it through your thick skull they can do what they want as long as they don't involve children.

Freelancer wrote:

Oh what was that about personal insults............

Tolerance doesn't work on the intolerant

Freelancer wrote:

Look your views about sex and women clearly show you know little about either. That absurd women are the ones who put a stop on sex prove it.....

Happily

Freelancer wrote:

Following that logic through you'd have no problems with lesbians adopting? But hmmmm what if one of the lesbians had lots of uncles?

Still think straight couple is better, but if im being honest I don't mind lesbians adopting as much. Lesbians don't get beat up as much (reduceing that risk for the child) and women abuse less frequently so that danger is reduced

Freelancer wrote:

See to take this through to its conclusion you're essentially saying "more close men in a childs live means a greater chance to be abused." Are we to ban men from roles like scout leaders? Teachers? Because this is your logic......

Parents have more contact with children and for longer.

Freelancer wrote:

Not answering the question, do you think homosexuality is a sin?

If I said I'm not religious I think the answer is obvious. No

Freelancer wrote:

Sure, course you did.

Yes I did

Freelancer wrote:

Thats nice, I'll ask again what does Sodom and Gormorah have to do with homosexuals adopting children?

I answered that.

Freelancer wrote:

You're talking about a story about a Sinful town and how a god allowed a man to offer his children to be raped to spare an angel and you don't think thats horse****?

Not my beliefs but I will not spit on them

Freelancer wrote:

The inference of the above is you think that banning homosexuality was necessary for society, due to the bibles code of practice.

I was responding to one of your comments. That is the reason that the bible says some whacky things. It was a side note.

Freelancer wrote:

No one is saying that though, people should be allowed adopt because they want children, no one is trying to use children as a politcal football, this is more delusions on your part.

You are. I would try and stop the rioters on o'connell street but I would not throw I child in front of me. Children cannot be endangered.

Freelancer wrote:

Again your language, you think homosexuality is a "regretable" risk. Are you also suggesting mixed race couples shouldn't have children because the offspring might be racial abused as well?

I meant that they could get the **** kicked out of them was regrettable.

Freelancer wrote:

You've yet to prove any child would be put in danger. I defy you to.

Adopt a child. Go to a crappy inner city school. Leave the child there at lunch break and tell them that he has gay parents. Watch the carnage.

Freelancer wrote:

This is just a lie. Period. You cannot prove this, have no way of knowing this. Theres a police presence in city center none of it is specifically in place to protect gay establishments. The lack of graffiti or vandalism outside these places would confirm my opinion. Police aren't always going to be there, yet these establishments aren't atttacked.

Whenever I pass the George there is always a gaurd within a short distance. I have never seen such consistancy on other streets. Oh and I have a friend who is training as a Guard. He says they always have people near enough to protect them.
I'd imagine the lack of graffeti is due to those big bounchers outside the George.....

I wouldn't trust Kinsey of all people.

Freelancer · 03-03-2006 12:43pm

Firespinner wrote:

Yes I do. Get it through your thick skull they can do what they want as long as they don't involve children.

Again, you're lying.

Tolerance doesn't work on the intolerant

Snorts, says the guy intolerant of gays adopting......

Happily

Waits expectantly for proof...

Still think straight couple is better, but if im being honest I don't mind lesbians adopting as much. Lesbians don't get beat up as much (reduceing that risk for the child) and women abuse less frequently so that danger is reduced

So its gay men you're intolerant of. You've offered no evidence that gay women get assaulted less then men, or that gay men are assaulted regularly.

Parents have more contact with children and for longer.

Again pathetic quibbling, what about divorced children who's mother's remarry, should that be allowed? Theres two man in those childrens lives....

If I said I'm not religious I think the answer is obvious. No

Again why raise homosexuality as sin or Sodom and Gorrmorah into the debate.

Yes I did

Uh huh, you're reduced to "Did not" "did to" level of rebuttal now. Debating at it's finest.

I answered that.

No you haven't you mumbled something about the bible, but you brought it into the debate when someone said "god help us" A common expression of exasperation and you raised religion. You're literaly talking out of your ass.

I was responding to one of your comments. That is the reason that the bible says some whacky things. It was a side note.

Again crap. You said these things were a code of practice to protect society the inference is that banning homosexuality is something that should be banned. If you're going to bring up inane side notes stop trying to prove you're some know it all, you only end up exposing your own bigotry

You are. I would try and stop the rioters on o'connell street but I would not throw I child in front of me. Children cannot be endangered.

Of all the most absurd comments you've made, this takes the biscuit. You're scaremongering that the children will be beaten up or murdered you offer no evidence that this would occur, and then claim we're endangering children by playing politics. You've created a straw man argument that is falling apart.

I meant that they could get the **** kicked out of them was regrettable.

Again course you did.....

And you've overed no evidence that there is a wave of gay bashing in ireland that justifies your hysteria.

Adopt a child. Go to a crappy inner city school. Leave the child there at lunch break and tell them that he has gay parents. Watch the carnage.

Again pathetic scaremongering I like the way you suggest that people from lower incomes are more intolerant.

This kind of petty hysterical doom scenario is the only one you can muster.

Whenever I pass the George there is always a gaurd within a short distance. I have never seen such consistancy on other streets. Oh and I have a friend who is training as a Guard. He says they always have people near enough to protect them.

Jesus you're reduced to "my mate says"

What about Inn on the liffey?

Or out on the liffey? Or gay saunas? Or Gubu?

Are you seriously suggesting this state affords the same protection we give to government ministers to gay bars...

I'd imagine the lack of graffeti is due to those big bounchers outside the George.....

Your imagination runs rampant the bouncers aren't always there your point is moot. Your argument in tatters.........

I wouldn't trust Kinsey of all people.

Actually you'll notice it was Abel and Harlow who used the Kinsey scale to compile the report. You're dismissing Kinsey one of the most important people in the field of human sexuality, so be a dear and tell us why you wouldn't trust Kinsey of all people.....

You dismiss three reports by psychologists with one (incorrect) comment line, what proof do you offer they are connected? Or is this more of the hot air and bluster that your point merely consists of.....

The_Minister · 03-03-2006 12:57pm

Freelancer wrote:

Again, you're lying. .

How the hell would you know. I do have gay and bisexual friends.

Freelancer wrote:

Snorts, says the guy intolerant of gays adopting.......

At least I tried to avoid personal comments.

Freelancer wrote:

Waits expectantly for proof....

You obviously didn't get the joke.

Freelancer wrote:

Uh huh, you're reduced to "Did not" "did to" level of rebuttal now. Debating at it's finest..

I did whether you like it or not. Your comment deserved no more detail.

Freelancer wrote:

No you haven't you mumbled something about the bible, but you brought it into the debate when someone said "god help us" A common expression of exasperation and you raised religion. You're literaly talking out of your ass..

I thought they were trying to bring the "jesus as hippy" angle.

Freelancer wrote:

Again crap. You said these things were a code of practice to protect society the inference is that banning homosexuality is something that should be banned. If you're going to bring up inane side notes stop trying to prove you're some know it all, you only end up exposing your own bigotry.

I know what I meant.

Freelancer wrote:

Jesus you're reduced to "my mate says".

My mate the Guard. We were talking about guards remember

Freelancer wrote:

What about Inn on the liffey?
Or out on the liffey? Or gay saunas? Or Gubu?.

I don't know about these places the George is the only one I know of. I assume they get the same level of protection. I'll ask my friend.

Freelancer wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting this state affords the same protection we give to government ministers to gay bars....

Not the same level

Freelancer wrote:

Your imagination runs rampant the bouncers aren't always there your point is moot. Your argument in tatters..........

The bouncers are there at night and I assume you don't go vandalising in the day time on a busy street

Freelancer · 03-03-2006 1:12pm

Firespinner wrote:

How the hell would you know. I do have gay and bisexual friends.

I do have gay friends....I DO I DO I DO

At least I tried to avoid personal comments.

But it didn't take you long before you started in with the questions about my sexual performance.

You had the moral high ground for a good ten minutes. Good for you...

You obviously didn't get the joke.

Oh I got it, you've consistently and on other thread made claims and made no attempt to back them up.....

I did whether you like it or not. Your comment deserved no more detail.

Than a one sentence rebuttal, which pretty much all your answers these.

I thought they were trying to bring the "jesus as hippy" angle.

Infantile. Jesus said nothing about gays, trying to back peddle and change your position at this point is tiresome and tedious.

I know what I meant.

And you're consistently getting shown up for you really are.

My mate the Guard. We were talking about guards remember

And again, your gay friend told you that they like do it all the time, and your garda friend assures us they get 24/7 police protection while they do it.

If you can't offer any more proof than your "friends" you've got fúck all.

I don't know about these places the George is the only one I know of. I assume they get the same level of protection. I'll ask my friend.

Of course you will, and I'm sure your "friend" will get back to us promptly.

Not the same level

You're suggesting that theres 24 police presence to protect a gay bar something a Minister's house gets, come off it......

The bouncers are there at night and I assume you don't go vandalising in the day time on a busy street

The place closes at two or three, plenty of time when the bouncers aren't there.

Oh and Firespinner?

You Missed a few bits....

Freelancer wrote:

And you've offered no evidence that there is a wave of gay bashing in ireland that justifies your hysteria.

Again pathetic scaremongering I like the way you suggest that people from lower incomes are more intolerant.

Freelancer wrote:

So its gay men you're intolerant of. You've offered no evidence that gay women get assaulted less then men, or that gay men are assaulted regularly.

Freelancer wrote:

Again pathetic quibbling, what about divorced children who's mother's remarry, should that be allowed? Theres two man in those childrens lives....

Freelancer wrote:

Actually you'll notice it was Abel and Harlow who used the Kinsey scale to compile the report. You're dismissing Kinsey one of the most important people in the field of human sexuality, so be a dear and tell us why you wouldn't trust Kinsey of all people.....

You dismiss three reports by psychologists with one (incorrect) comment line, what proof do you offer they are connected? Or is this more of the hot air and bluster that your point merely consists of.....

Blub2k4 · 03-03-2006 1:31pm

Firespinner wrote:

How the hell would you know. I do have gay and bisexual friends.

Firespinner wrote:

Yes I do. Get it through your thick skull they can do what they want as long as they don't involve children.

I call BS too on the gay friends thing, I believe you maybe have gay acquaintances but at no level are they "friends" when you constantly refer to them and "the gays".

Do your friends know that you think of them like this, do they know you think they have paedophile tendencies? I'd suggest that as a test you go and have this discussion with some of them and show them this thread and see what they think afterwards and how dearly they hold your friendship, why the hell would you want to be friends with a bunch of paedophiles anyway, man you're sick?
As a side note, what age are you? It is not largely relevant to the discussion but would give a better understanding of where you are coming from.

The_Minister · 03-03-2006 2:45pm

Blub2k4 wrote:

I call BS too on the gay friends thing, I believe you maybe have gay acquaintances but at no level are they "friends" when you constantly refer to them and "the gays".

Do your friends know that you think of them like this, do they know you think they have paedophile tendencies? I'd suggest that as a test you go and have this discussion with some of them and show them this thread and see what they think afterwards and how dearly they hold your friendship, why the hell would you want to be friends with a bunch of paedophiles anyway, man you're sick?
As a side note, what age are you? It is not largely relevant to the discussion but would give a better understanding of where you are coming from.

I do have gay friends and we have discussed our views. Most said that gay adoption would put children at risk and needs to wait for a while, after parterships come in when society has changed more. (Admittadly one took Freelancers line that bastards should not be given into). What is the problem with saying "the gays" when that is who you are talking about? As you may guess I found considerably less agreement on the paedophile thing, but that does not mean we stop being friends. They know I do not think that they in particular are paedophiles and face-to-face it is easier to say in a non-offensive way and to explain my stance. Remember a higher percentage are paedophiles (I can't see how straight guys could have sex with boys) but not all.
Oh and I'm 18

Mia belle · 03-03-2006 3:09pm

do you mind me asking what risks you are talking about ?

The_Minister · 03-03-2006 3:12pm

Mia belle wrote:

do you mind me asking what risks you are talking about ?

Mainly getting the **** kicked out of them by bastards. A lesser risk is the paedophilia thing.

Gay Rights

Comments