Gay Rights

Dudess

Freelancer wrote:

This kids will be bullied nonsense is just bull.

There was one poor bastard who started secondary school, in me back in the early 90s with the unfortunate name "Jason Donovan" (back in the old Scott n Charleen days) We ripped the piss out of him something rotten. One kid got laughed at cause his dad's name was Pascal. I talked too fast. Fat kids cause they were fat, nerds because they are nerds, etc etc........

In fact a Australian friend had a class mate who's mother was eaten by a shark. While cleaning barnacles off their boat, in front of her children; who were greeted on their first day back at school, by class mates running after them chanting the theme from Jaws.

Kids are a violent malevolent vicious tribe and will attack their classmates over the slightest thing, so suggesting that these kids need to be protected because their parents are gay and they may get teased is just bullshít.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the stuff you mentioned like the Jason Donovan thing, the dad called Pascal thing, just sounds like a bit of mickey-taking. I don't think you can compare that with what homophobia can cause people to do. Kids aren't born with prejudice. They learn it from adults and, given the particularly violent stance some people take on homosexuality, I'd say what their kids learn from them could be pretty damn dangerous. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the examples you have cited seem to be the type of thing that bullyling kids are bound to forget about after a while, that they are just fodder for phases of bullying which will eventually peter out. I was nicknamed 'bag of bones' at school for being so skinny but it didn't damage me, and they gave up after a while. Kids who have been taught to hate gay people though, I don't know, but I'd say there's a likelihood they'll carry on the hating (possibly getting worse) as they get older, from primary to secondary school.

The OP

They should have the exact same rights, except having children (including adoption). I agree with 'El_tel': ..because gay couples choose a relationship that naturally precludes procreation, they in effect are forfeiting their ability to have children and as such should not be allowed to adopt.

I also agree with 'declanoneill': Children should never be allowed to be placed in the care of a person or people that would result in their warping as they got older.

Since the poll options are poorly thought out, I had to vote No.

Dudess

Warping? Drumming hateful ideologies into a kid's head - now that's warping. Honestly, believing that kids raised by a same-sex couple could end up warped is Monty Python-esque in its stupidity.
By the way, I've more than a little inkling that imright, with his/her post on animals, burgers etc, was only taking the piss.

Ag marbh

The OP wrote:

They should have the exact same rights, except having children (including adoption). I agree with 'El_tel': ..because gay couples choose a relationship that naturally precludes procreation, they in effect are forfeiting their ability to have children and as such should not be allowed to adopt.

I also agree with 'declanoneill': Children should never be allowed to be placed in the care of a person or people that would result in their warping as they got older.

Since the poll options are poorly thought out, I had to vote No.

Gay couples could bring a child up just aswell as any hetrosexual couple. If society didn't make such a big deal about it and let it pass by as normal noone would be hurt.

Freelancer

Dudess wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the stuff you mentioned like the Jason Donovan thing, the dad called Pascal thing, just sounds like a bit of mickey-taking. I don't think you can compare that with what homophobia can cause people to do. Kids aren't born with prejudice. They learn it from adults and, given the particularly violent stance some people take on homosexuality, I'd say what their kids learn from them could be pretty damn dangerous. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the examples you have cited seem to be the type of thing that bullyling kids are bound to forget about after a while, that they are just fodder for phases of bullying which will eventually peter out. I was nicknamed 'bag of bones' at school for being so skinny but it didn't damage me, and they gave up after a while. Kids who have been taught to hate gay people though, I don't know, but I'd say there's a likelihood they'll carry on the hating (possibly getting worse) as they get older, from primary to secondary school.

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?

The_Minister

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?

Think of gay bashings. The amount of damage done and violence would most likely be alot more than calling "fatty, fat, fat, fat...". We would not be talking about ordinary bullying here.

I already said you cannot use children to make a social point, especially by endangering them even if it is to combat prejudice. Few people care if gays visit each other in hospital or leave the house to each other, but you cannot expose children to danger. No-one has a right to a child.

Mia belle

I would agree with same sex couples adopting. My husband and I have adopted 3 times from Vietnam, Adoption is not for the faint hearted. It is a long and stressful process and only the strongest of relationships would see it through to the end. It took us 4 years to complete our 1st adoption and 3 for the 2nd and 3rd. There is no domestic adoption in Ireland at the moment. Couples adopt from abroad. The process is very intense which is as it should be. We are very open with our eldest daughter about her adoption, we realise we are not like every family in Ireland and we want our daughters to be proud of this, not embarassed or ashamed. I would imagine in a same sex family parents would also raise their adopted children to be proud of their differences, their parents relationship and their racial differences. Its only by teaching our children that not all families and situations are black and white that we can hope for people to be treated as equals. By not allowing same sex couples adopt, we are saying its wrong and this is so untrue. Many children are being raised by single parents with no ill effects, I know lots of kids being raised by mum and gran, fantastic. My own parents brought us up to respect others for who they are and also respect the choices they make. If a gay couple are in a strong loving relationship and complete the 4 years or so international adoption process takes, then they should not be denied the joy parenting an adoptive child brings, nor should the child be denied the chance of a loving home and bright future they would not get otherwise. Married couples and single people are treated no differently in adoption, you apply and wait to get processed, it should be the same for gay couples.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Think of gay bashings. The amount of damage done and violence would most likely be alot more than calling "fatty, fat, fat, fat...". We would not be talking about ordinary bullying here.

A minute ago you were making absurd claims about "women limiting sex" or paedophilia, (and god alone knows what the comment about "to cities" meant.

Where's your evidence that these children would recieve worse bullying?

And the obvious similarities between pro segeration groups about "how dangerous, it would be for intergration to occur.

I already said you cannot use children to make a social point, especially by endangering them even if it is to combat prejudice. Few people care if gays visit each other in hospital or leave the house to each other, but you cannot expose children to danger. No-one has a right to a child.

And no one has a right to limit the rights of gay couples to adopt because of netherthals like yourself might be outraged.

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

God its been a while since I was on George's st are the regular mass stones still occuring at the George around closing time? :rolleyes:

Blub2k4

How the hell does a discussion about gay rights even end up with people discussing paedophilia? Are you really that ill-informed that you think there is a link between gay people and mental illness? Dark ages kinda stuff there, surely in this day and age you know gay people and are mature enough to make a call on the people.....sure there must be gay paedophiles, probably exactly the same amount proportionally to hetero cases, you cant equate normal sexuality with sickness....really really scary folks out there.

Oh the other thing, err you cant "catch gay" from association with homosexuals, but it might improve your dress sense and personal hygiene a bit

rsynnott

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.)

patzer117

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.)

Down with your political correctness. I think little people would prefer to be called little people rather than dwarves. And gay isn't a pejorative term.

To answer one or two of the questions, sterile people should be allowed to marry because their relationship doesn't exclude the possibility of procreation deliberately. Even if it did it is far too hard to determine whether someone is sterile or not before offering them marraige etc. with homosexuals (gays rsynnott), this isn't the case, it's clear they can't procreate.

Onto adoption, I'm of the opinion that drunks and criminals shouldn't be allowed to adopt too Freelancer, i think, ideally, only happily married heterosexual couples who can provide a good home for the child should be allowed to adopt. i simply feel that a child needs both a male and female role model in their lives. I know plenty of situations exist where this isn't the case, but i think that with adoption we have the chance to make it possible, so why settle for second best?


And lastly to deal with this issue of the poll, it's not a case of simply denying gay people equal rights - the entire question is very very misleading. Of course they shold have the same rights in every area imp, except for adoption. that's why i voted no. it's not that i have negative opinions against gay people, or would discriminate against them in the work place or anything like that, so stop your criticiscing Ag Marbh. An accurate poll would have given us options, this poll creates a divide whereby you're either pro-gay adoption or 'completely anti-gays' which is disgusting in the 21st century.]

hope that clears a few things up
patzer

Rev Hellfire

Its funny but it seems to me that when people talk about adoption (and this isn't just limited to the whole gays have the right to adopt thing) they are missing the point.
Adoption of a child is not a right it’s a privilege. The item of concern is the welfare of the child and what will be best for them, your or anybody else’s rights don’t come into it.

As for are gays incapable of being good parents, there’s certainly no reason to think so. But might a child be better of in a conventional home. I’d say yes since there is no reason to expose them to the problems that a gay couple may be subjected to. For the same reason single's shouldn't also be allowed to adopt in my humble opinion. Because ultimately if we're honest when people look to adopt its for a selfish reason, something they do for themselves. And I would count myself no different.

Mia belle

Rev Hellfire do you think a couple deciding to have biological children are also selfish? We decided to start a family because we both adore children, when it wasn't happening for us our next step was adoption, I don't feel we were being selfish in wanting children in our lives.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Onto adoption, I'm of the opinion that drunks and criminals shouldn't be allowed to adopt too Freelancer, i think, ideally, only happily married heterosexual couples who can provide a good home for the child should be allowed to adopt. i simply feel that a child needs both a male and female role model in their lives. I know plenty of situations exist where this isn't the case, but i think that with adoption we have the chance to make it possible, so why settle for second best?

Okay, but for example theres a shortage of foster homes in the UK, patronizing talk about rolemodels aside, theres a need for stable families to adopt and foster, why should children be deprived of that right to adopt.

Would you rather see a child raised in a romanian orphanage than be adopted by a gay couple?

Inane talk about rolemodels and traditional family values aside, if you're talking about the welfare of children being paramount.

There are millions of children in this world who need a good home, and too few couples brave enough to adopt, why deprive gay couples and children this because of some inspid leave it to beaveresque dream of "family values"

Mia belle

By the way, I totally agree the childs rights are the most important thing in adoption, but I feel if a couple/single of whatever sex feel they are ready and able to raise an adopted child then they should be able to do so. I doubt anyone decides to adopt just to make a point, its all about wanting to raise and love a child and a persons sexual preferance shouldn't even come into it. No one decides overnight to start a family, adoption is no different.

Rev Hellfire

Mia belle wrote:

Rev Hellfire do you think a couple deciding to have biological children are also selfish? We decided to start a family because we both adore children, when it wasn't happening for us our next step was adoption, I don't feel we were being selfish in wanting children in our lives.

Yes, I'd say your motives are selfish. This is something you're doing for yourself to make you happy. Now I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, but if you're honest its a totally selfish act.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

A minute ago you were making absurd claims about "women limiting sex" :

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

Freelancer wrote:

and god alone knows what the comment about "to cities" meant.:

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

Freelancer wrote:

Where's your evidence that these children would recieve worse bullying?:

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.

Freelancer wrote:

And no one has a right to limit the rights of gay couples to adopt because of netherthals like yourself might be outraged. :

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.

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?:

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

Freelancer wrote:

God its been a while since I was on George's st are the regular mass stones still occuring at the George around closing time? :rolleyes:

They have Garda to protect them now.

Mia belle

so anytime anyone does anything to make them happy no matter what it is they are being selfish. My definition of a selfish person is someone who only thinks of themselves and disregards others.

egan007

A thread with "GAY RIGHTS" is f*cking hillarious!

Exercise your right as humans and quit semantics!
Man there are some weak ass people here - excuse the pun

The_Minister

Mia belle wrote:

so anytime anyone does anything to make them happy no matter what it is they are being selfish. My definition of a selfish person is someone who only thinks of themselves and disregards others.

I think he means that you did it for your fulfillment rather than through concern for the child. I think his premise is a bit wobbly.

Mia belle

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The_Minister

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.