Gays want to take over the rest of Society?

laoch na mona

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Damned by what?

from what i have seen in my parish

ould ones

MrStuffins

Freddie59 wrote: »

I live in a quite normal semi-d in surburbia.:) And you really are starting to get confused. Many people in mainstream society couldn't give a hoot about gays (myself included). But are perfectly within their rights to question the gay outlook on heterosexuals. It's kinda peculiar though. Wanting the whole marriage and kids thing - a heterosexual lifestyle in essence?:)

Ah, so you live in the same mainstream society than the rest of us.

Pretending you don't live in a world where gay people exist is just making you look stupid!

And yes, you can question the outlook. You can question what you want.

But if you come out firing vullets like you have done here and you have absolutely nothing to back it up with, then don't be complaining and playing the victim card when people find your views wrong.

laoch na mona

Freddie59 wrote: »

Doesn't bother me either way.

so your ok with child abuse?

Freddie59

laoch na mona wrote: »

im catholic and i cant accept that a gay who works for a charity is more damned then a straight man who beats his wife

No-one's saying they're damned (on this thread anyway!).

Freddie59

laoch na mona wrote: »

so your ok with child abuse?

PLEASE - where is that 'shakes head' icon????!!!!!

MrStuffins

yupyup7up wrote: »

The wombs comment was supposed to be joke, a dig at how ridiculous society becomes at times.

Jokes are hard to deceifer on the ionternet unles you use smileys.

Why isn't my opinion valid? You listed material possessions. Not the same. I personally don't think messing about with human relations is a good thing. You can't come out and say I'm wrong just because of what you or anybody else thinks.

I never said you were wrong. I've asked you to back up your opinions and you can't. The best you have is "It's not natural". It's a poor argument. That's not my fault.

I don't have to agree with anything and I'm not going to hide about how I feel on a subject, but if you were gay (I'm sorry I don't know if you are or not!) I'd treat you as I would any other person. I'm a complete bastard, but I have my own personal opinions.

That's good.

Freddie59

MrStuffins wrote: »

Ah, so you live in the same mainstream society than the rest of us.

Pretending you don't live in a world where gay people exist is just making you look stupid!

And yes, you can question the outlook. You can question what you want.

But if you come out firing vullets like you have done here and you have absolutely nothing to back it up with, then don't be complaining and playing the victim card when people find your views wrong.

What are vullets?;):D

Hmm. You're just proving my point the more this thread goes on......keep digging my friend.:)

woodoo

I wonder will Syed and Christian get married and adopt?

MrStuffins

Freddie59 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus. The sooner a 'shakes head' icon is added the better. I can't see cars or deodorants wanting to get married and have kids anytime soon......:rolleyes:

Nope, but if you are automatically against something for no other reason that "It's not natural" then maybe you shouldn't be using the internet. It's not natural after all.

MrStuffins

Freddie59 wrote: »

What are vullets?;):D

If you were clever enough you would've realised that "v" and "b" are beside each other on the keyboard and I actually meant "bullets".

That's ok though, you'll learn.

Hmm. You're just proving my point the more this thread goes on......keep digging my friend.:)

Indeed. I am proving that, as the thrwad goes on, you have nothing more to add.

Sinfonia

yupyup7up wrote: »

Sorry now but I have to disagree.

Not everybody that doesn't like homosexuality wants them dead or injured or whatever. I simply don't agree with it, but it's nothing to do with me. If I'm introduced to a gay person, I treat them as I would any other person.

I'm not going to say "Oh yeah I'm all for homosexuality", because I'm not for it, but I'm also not going to treat gay people any differently.

Biologically, gay people don't have kids, and I don't think anybody is in a position to mess about with nature. Next we'll be talking about putting wombs into men. It's insane.

I don't have any points to add other than it's not natural, which for me, is an extremely valid argument.

Two men literally creating a child is not natural. It also doesn't happen.
Being gay is natural. Because it happens.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yep. That's about it. But, unfortunately, here on AH and boards.ie in general, people who believe in God; question gay behaviour; and so on are almost classed as freaks. Shouted down by those that you mention at every opportunity because they refuse to be 'assimilated'!:D

So what you're saying is that you feel like a trod-upon minority when you express opinions on boards? Interesting. Maybe you should tailor your beliefs to suit the majority of this societal microcosm.

yupyup7up

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nope, but if you are automatically against something for no other reason that "It's not natural" then maybe you shouldn't be using the internet. It's not natural after all.

You just don't see the comparison between people and material objects do you? From what you are saying, if I broke my phone, then I'd get life in jail for murder:rolleyes:

df1985

My two cents on a few of the issues raised (as a gay 25yr old guy)

Gay marriage: I think people get very hung up on the word "marriage", I dont want marriage, i want the rights that come from marriage. civil partnership is a big step forward but it didnt go far enough. People calling for "gay marriage" are actually just calling out for the same rights a straight couple have. if the law does change, doesnt have to be called "marriage", call it a big puff party for all I care, once the rights are the same.

Gay adoption: ok, if the state decides that adoption is SOLELY for a married man and woman in a typical family unit, then fair enough-Ill accept that. however, as far as Im aware adoption is also open to single people. therefore I should not be discounted soley based on my sexuality. Id be a better father to a child than many I see going around today-what does it matter if daddy has a boyfriend? if the powers that be decide im not suitable, then fair enough-be it for financial or whatever reasons but at least let me apply and not have the door shut in my face simply because im gay.

MrStuffins

yupyup7up wrote: »

You just don't see the comparison between people and material objects do you? From what you are saying, if I broke my phone, then I'd get life in jail for murder:rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA06Z5e1ZFc

yupyup7up

df1985 wrote: »

My two cents on a few of the issues raised (as a gay 25yr old guy)

Gay marriage: I think people get very hung up on the word "marriage", I dont want marriage, i want the rights that come from marriage. civil partnership is a big step forward but it didnt go far enough. People calling for "gay marriage" are actually just calling out for the same rights a straight couple have. if the law does change, doesnt have to be called "marriage", call it a big puff party for all I care, once the rights are the same.

Gay adoption: ok, if the state decides that adoption is SOLELY for a married man and woman in a typical family unit, then fair enough-Ill accept that. however, as far as Im aware adoption is also open to single people. therefore I should not be discounted soley based on my sexuality. Id be a better father to a child than many I see going around today-what does it matter if daddy has a boyfriend? if the powers that be decide im not suitable, then fair enough-be it for financial or whatever reasons but at least let me apply and not have the door shut in my face simply because im gay.

I personally don't care about the marriage side of things. Marry away I say!

I wasn't aware that adoption was an option to single people. I wouldn't agree with that either!

yupyup7up

MrStuffins wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA06Z5e1ZFc

Facepalm for my comment? You're the one making outrageous statements!

MrStuffins

yupyup7up wrote: »

Facepalm for my comment? You're the one making outrageous statements!

My point was pretty straight forward. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly misunderstand it but..............you told me I my point was that you could murder your phone.

Dear oh dear!!

yupyup7up

MrStuffins wrote: »

My point was pretty straight forward. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly misunderstand it but..............you told me I my point was that you could murder your phone.

Dear oh dear!!

You compare human relations with man made objects as an argument! Come on now, lets be realistic here. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you should try ridicule me (or yourself in this case).

Simtech

yupyup7up wrote: »

I personally don't care about the marriage side of things. Marry away I say!

I wasn't aware that adoption was an option to single people. I wouldn't agree with that either!

The following persons are eligible to adopt:-

(a) a married couple living together; this is the only circumstance where the law permits the adoption of a child by more than one person:
(b) a married person alone; in this circumstances the spouse’s consent to adopt must be obtained, unless they are living apart and are separated under (i) a court decree or (ii) deed of separation or (iii) the spouse has deserted the prospective adopter or (iv) conduct on the part of the spouse results in the prospective adopter, with just cause, leaving the spouse and living apart;
(c) the mother, father or a relative of the child (relative meaning a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the child and/or the spouse of any such person, the relationship to the child being traced through the mother or the father);
(d) a widow or widower.

A sole applicant who does not come within the classes of persons defined under (c) and (d) above may only adopt where the Adoption Authority of Ireland is satisfied that, in particular circumstances of the case, it is desirable to grant an order. It is not possible for two unmarried persons to adopt jointly.
http://aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/introduction.html

ITS_A_BADGER

damn gays coming over here taking our women:rolleyes:

MrStuffins

yupyup7up wrote: »

You compare human relations with man made objects as an argument! Come on now, lets be realistic here. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you should try ridicule me (or yourself in this case).

Nope, I compared one thing that was not natural with another thing that was not natiral.

You see, your only argument is "it's not natural". It seems to me that something not being natural only bothers you when it suits you.

efb

Were here! Were Queer, I'd actually like a few more bears! RAAR!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IM9kh2IX58

yupyup7up

Simtech wrote: »

The following persons are eligible to adopt:-

(a) a married couple living together; this is the only circumstance where the law permits the adoption of a child by more than one person:
(b) a married person alone; in this circumstances the spouse’s consent to adopt must be obtained, unless they are living apart and are separated under (i) a court decree or (ii) deed of separation or (iii) the spouse has deserted the prospective adopter or (iv) conduct on the part of the spouse results in the prospective adopter, with just cause, leaving the spouse and living apart;
(c) the mother, father or a relative of the child (relative meaning a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the child and/or the spouse of any such person, the relationship to the child being traced through the mother or the father);
(d) a widow or widower.

A sole applicant who does not come within the classes of persons defined under (c) and (d) above may only adopt where the Adoption Authority of Ireland is satisfied that, in particular circumstances of the case, it is desirable to grant an order. It is not possible for two unmarried persons to adopt jointly.
http://aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/introduction.html

The law seems spot on to me! I reckon that civil partnership should be retained, but give any financial benefits etc. too

laoch na mona

I blame the greeks
feckin Quaresssssssss:D

Freddie59

yupyup7up wrote: »

Facepalm for my comment? You're the one making outrageous statements!

Not according to his good self......:)

4leto

MrStuffins wrote: »

Nope, I compared one thing that was not natural with another thing that was not natiral.

You see, your only argument is "it's not natural". It seems to me that something not being natural only bothers you when it suits you.

Is your sexual practices natural, do stick to the Christian method and only have sex for procreation????

Freddie59

Sinfonia wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you feel like a trod-upon minority when you express opinions on boards? Interesting. Maybe you should tailor your beliefs to suit the majority of this societal microcosm.

Well, unfortunately, it is the reality.;)

MrStuffins

4leto wrote: »

Is your sexual practices natural, do stick to the Christian method and only have sex for procreation????

F*ck no!

I'm not Christian you see, so i don't take my instructions from the Bible.

It's just as well, because if i did i'd have to put my mother to death for working yesterday, the sabbath, according to Leviticus. I like my mother though. Most I could do it beat her up a bit!

I have sex for pleasure and because I am deeply in love with my other half. We actively prevent procreation though

Killer Pigeon

efb wrote: »

Were here! Were Queer, I'd actually like a few more bears! RAAR!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IM9kh2IX58

Google "Open House gay bears", choose the first link. You will not be disappointed.

df1985

Simtech wrote: »

The following persons are eligible to adopt:-

(a) a married couple living together; this is the only circumstance where the law permits the adoption of a child by more than one person:
(b) a married person alone; in this circumstances the spouse’s consent to adopt must be obtained, unless they are living apart and are separated under (i) a court decree or (ii) deed of separation or (iii) the spouse has deserted the prospective adopter or (iv) conduct on the part of the spouse results in the prospective adopter, with just cause, leaving the spouse and living apart;
(c) the mother, father or a relative of the child (relative meaning a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the child and/or the spouse of any such person, the relationship to the child being traced through the mother or the father);
(d) a widow or widower.

A sole applicant who does not come within the classes of persons defined under (c) and (d) above may only adopt where the Adoption Authority of Ireland is satisfied that, in particular circumstances of the case, it is desirable to grant an order. It is not possible for two unmarried persons to adopt jointly.
http://aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/introduction.html

B reads to me as a couple with marriage problems!
D is just a single person really, what does it matter if they were previously married.

Simtech

efb wrote: »

Were here! Were Queer, I'd actually like a few more bears! RAAR! QUOTE]

I think one of the principal arguments of the majority is; Yes, we know you are here and queer, we just don't need to have it paraded in front of us at every opportunity as in Gay Pride for example. There is no Hetero Pride parade as it would be considered crass and insulting to and by those who are not hetero.

efb

Simtech wrote: »

efb wrote: »

Were here! Were Queer, I'd actually like a few more bears! RAAR!

I think one of the principal arguments of the majority is; Yes, we know you are here and queer, we just don't need to have it paraded in front of us at every opportunity as in Gay Pride for example. There is no Hetero Pride parade as it would be considered crass and insulting to and by those who are not hetero.

Google Stonewall for reasons for Pride

yupyup7up

Simtech wrote: »

efb wrote: »

Were here! Were Queer, I'd actually like a few more bears! RAAR!

I think one of the principal arguments of the majority is; Yes, we know you are here and queer, we just don't need to have it paraded in front of us at every opportunity as in Gay Pride for example. There is no Hetero Pride parade as it would be considered crass and insulting to and by those who are not hetero.

Good point. It would be the same as releasing a White Entertainment Television channel!

Killer Pigeon

Simtech wrote: »

efb wrote: »

Were here! Were Queer, I'd actually like a few more bears! RAAR! QUOTE]

I think one of the principal arguments of the majority is; Yes, we know you are here and queer, we just don't need to have it paraded in front of us at every opportunity as in Gay Pride for example. There is no Hetero Pride parade as it would be considered crass and insulting to and by those who are not hetero.

There's a hetero parade nearly every night in Temple Bar.

efb

Simtech wrote: »

efb wrote: »

Were here! Were Queer, I'd actually like a few more bears! RAAR! QUOTE]

I think one of the principal arguments of the majority is; Yes, we know you are here and queer, we just don't need to have it paraded in front of us at every opportunity as in Gay Pride for example. There is no Hetero Pride parade as it would be considered crass and insulting to and by those who are not hetero.

lots of my hetro friends march at pride- they believe in equal rights for gays too.

Simtech

efb wrote: »

Simtech wrote: »

Google Stonewall for reasons for Pride

I found a documentary on it, downloading now.

efb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O0KaMEvBDo

MrStuffins

laoch na mona wrote: »

I blame the greeks
feckin Quaresssssssss:D

They invented gayness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

efb

MrStuffins wrote: »

They invented gayness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

La Gréce, Douze Points!

laoch na mona

we should have elected dana she would have banned their decedent lifestyle

MrStuffins

laoch na mona wrote: »

we should have elected dana she would have banned their decedent lifestyle

Or she would've made them all walk around holding a copy of the constitution!

Simtech

efb wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O0KaMEvBDo

Ah! I see. Ya learn something new every day!

eightyfish

thebullkf wrote: »

you state there would never be a case where the only difference would be sexual orientation.... can you prove that?

As I said earlier, there are waiting lists for these things if there are two equally suited couples who want to adopt. Your question has been answered. Let's move on.

Freddie59 wrote: »

It is their choice whether or not they want to go public with it. Your reply is atypical of the hysteria against non-gays on this thread.

You mean it's a gay person's choice if they want to come out? Also you think that everyone defending equality on this thread is gay?

In terms of the family thing - okay the ideal is a child with their natural parents. After that, nothing is "natural", and the concept of a family unit is changing dramatically. As long as there is intention to raise a child well, and love and respect and financial stability and all that - the more good people involved in raising the next generation the better.

daddydick

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Te-he. Send me a PM with your number, maybe we can get together some time and I'll show you. Te-he.

BTW, asl? top/bottom? travel/accom?

No -, I couldn't think of anything worse than getting a willy put in my bum bum by a fella called killer pigeon

efb

daddydick wrote: »

No -, I couldn't think of anything worse than getting a willy put in my bum bum by a fella called killer pigeon

would you like to put your willy in his bum bum?

(Once you are 17 years or older)

eightyfish

efb wrote: »

I think one of the principal arguments of the majority is; Yes, we know you are here and queer, we just don't need to have it paraded in front of us at every opportunity as in Gay Pride for example. There is no Hetero Pride parade as it would be considered crass and insulting to and by those who are not hetero.

As it happens my gay friends would agree - but heterosexual people have never lived under an oppressive society where it was immoral and illegal to be straight. They never had to hide who they were for fear of humiliation or arrest. They don't, in the Middle East and parts of Africa, still live in fear of lynch-mobbing, stoning, being buried alive, hanged by the government or stoned to death. We have come a long way in our society's acceptability of the norm of homosexuality, and this is a good thing worth celebrating - so even though it's not my thing - let them at it. Good for them. Enjoy the party.

Killer Pigeon

daddydick wrote: »

No -, I couldn't think of anything worse than getting a willy put in my bum bum by a fella called killer pigeon

Well, we could have it the other way around ...

If you're over 17 that is (or preferable over 20) if you like.

efb

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well, we could have it the other way around ...

If you're over 17 that is (or preferable over 20) if you like.

sure lads why not have the boys around, have a bit of an orgy, grab the willy to your left, now stroke!

Sinfonia

efb wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O0KaMEvBDo

Good post!

Also, are the clips from a pre-existing TV show or movie? Because the cop with the moustache talking about '3 items or more of clothing' etc. is played by the actor who plays Bill Rawls (a cop) in The Wire.
Rawls is, in a later episode, suggested to be gay by being seen (only by the audience and not by other important characters in the show) at a gay bar, in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment.

Lil' bit o' trivia there. :pac:

efb

Sinfonia wrote: »

Good post!

Also, are the clips from a pre-existing TV show or movie? Because the cop with the moustache talking about '3 items or more of clothing' etc. is played by the actor who plays Bill Rawls (a cop) in The Wire.
Rawls is, in a later episode, suggested to be gay by being seen (only by the audience and not by other important characters in the show) at a gay bar, in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment.

Lil' bit o' trivia there. :pac:

yes a movie called Stonewall Rising