Tonight With Vincent Browne Thread v3.0 (07/04/13 - 08/07/14)

recipio

RobertKK wrote: »

Lucinda Creighton needs to turn the reform alliance into a political party and to hell with FF and FG.

Bad name. Nobody seems to have heard of the 'reform group' which wants us to reconsider integration with the UK.After watching Hector's antics tonight not such a bad idea. ?

RobertKK

grey_so_what wrote: »

Do you know something we don't RKK??........:eek:

You can tell us...........:D:P

I know they shared a plane together.

Ghostly ink is good.

In regards to same sex couples, I hear couples saying they have been having the same sex for years.

RobertKK

recipio wrote: »

Bad name. Nobody seems to have heard of the 'reform group' which wants us to reconsider integration with the UK.After watching Hector's antics tonight not such a bad idea. ?

No, no, we need to integrate with Germany, they have all the money and we wouldn't have to pay back all that money they lent us.

grey_so_what

RobertKK wrote: »

I know they shared a plane together.

Ghostly ink is good.

:D:D

I'll let you get away with it for the night that's in it.............:p

hotmail.com

RayM wrote: »

The anti-gay-marriage side don't have any valid arguments. Not a single one. All they have is the ability to be obnoxious and interrupt people.

Or just plain bigots.

But of course, they get insulted when called that and hide behind religion to justify their discrimination of others.

Averil Power has been a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage for many years now and it hasn't made her popular among some of her FF colleagues and some of the FF party members, so I respect her for that.

RobertKK

hotmail.com wrote: »

Or just plain bigots.

But of course, they get insulted when called that and hide behind religion to justify their discrimination of others.

Averil Power has been a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage for many years now and it hasn't made her popular among some of her FF colleagues and some of the FF party members, so I respect her for that.

FF are pro-same sex marriage and gay adoption as voted for at their ard fheis.

Micheal Martin in the Dail: I believe in marriage equality and it is important that a referendum would take place.


Being against same sex marriage doesn't make one a bigot. It is like saying one is a bigot if they say there are differences between men and women and to suggest there are differences between men and women makes one a bigot.
A same sex couple is not the same as couple of the opposite sexes.Society needs men and women to have sex to produce children, a stable relationship is the best place for the biological chiuldren to be brought up in once it is a safe and loving environment.
A same sex couple needs others to have a child, do you deny the child one of it's natural parent's to fulfil a personal desire?
When people talk of equality, they are not talking of equality for a child where the best place for the child is to be brought up by it's biological parents.

FF have lost itself and to try and get Dublin back it has abandoned the social values they once espoused, the leadership wanted the party to vote for suicide as a reason for an abortion and it supports same sex marriage and gay adoption.

I believe everyone should be treated with respect, it doesn't mean everyone has the same rights, as one can't say 2 of 1 is the same as 1 of 2.

hotmail.com

RobertKK wrote: »

FF are pro-same sex marriage and gay adoption as voted for at their ard fheis.

Micheal Martin in the Dail: I believe in marriage equality and it is important that a referendum would take place.


Being against same sex marriage doesn't make one a bigot. It is like saying one is a bigot if they say there are differences between men and women and to suggest there are differences between men and women makes one a bigot.
A same sex couple is not the same as couple of the opposite sexes.Society needs men and women to have sex to produce children, a stable relationship is the best place for the biological chiuldren to be brought up in once it is a safe and loving environment.
A same sex couple needs others to have a child, do you deny the child one of it's natural parent's to fulfil a personal desire?
When people talk of equality, they are not talking of equality for a child where the best place for the child is to be brought up by it's biological parents.

FF have lost itself and to try and get Dublin back it has abandoned the social values they once espoused, the leadership wanted the party to vote for suicide as a reason for an abortion and it supports same sex marriage and gay adoption.

I believe everyone should be treated with respect, it doesn't mean everyone has the same rights, as one can't say 2 of 1 is the same as 1 of 2.

Are you opposed to people adopting children on the basis of the sexuality or the fact that it is two men or two women?

Gay couples can and do provide loving, stable environments for children to be raised in. Do you know many gay couples?It's very insulting to hear these types of views. The idea that gay people can't raise children is just plain offensive and bigotted based on no evidence. Society doesn't need more children, it needs greater tolerance of all people. Your statements are offensive also to the many people brought up in Ireland outside of the traditional family unit...single/widowed parents, reared by grandparents, adopted, fostered etc.

Callan57

RobertKK wrote: »

FF are pro-same sex marriage and gay adoption as voted for at their ard fheis.

Micheal Martin in the Dail: I believe in marriage equality and it is important that a referendum would take place.


Being against same sex marriage doesn't make one a bigot. It is like saying one is a bigot if they say there are differences between men and women and to suggest there are differences between men and women makes one a bigot.
A same sex couple is not the same as couple of the opposite sexes.Society needs men and women to have sex to produce children, a stable relationship is the best place for the biological chiuldren to be brought up in once it is a safe and loving environment.
A same sex couple needs others to have a child, do you deny the child one of it's natural parent's to fulfil a personal desire?
When people talk of equality, they are not talking of equality for a child where the best place for the child is to be brought up by it's biological parents.

FF have lost itself and to try and get Dublin back it has abandoned the social values they once espoused, the leadership wanted the party to vote for suicide as a reason for an abortion and it supports same sex marriage and gay adoption.

I believe everyone should be treated with respect, it doesn't mean everyone has the same rights, as one can't say 2 of 1 is the same as 1 of 2.

Not strictly true anymore ... a testube & a bit of jiggery-pokery will do just aswell apparently

RayM

RobertKK wrote: »

Being against same sex marriage doesn't make one a bigot.

It absolutely does. There are no valid arguments against same sex marriage.

Gay adoption and gay marriage are two separate arguments. It's likely that the adoption issue (which doesn't require a referendum) will be legislated for before any referendum on marriage rights.

If you vote against same sex marriage in the forthcoming referendum, you are a bigot.

NuMarvel

Callan57 wrote: »

Not strictly true anymore ... a testube & a bit of jiggery-pokery will do just aswell apparently

Even if it was true, I'm not sure why it's an argument against same sex marriage. It's not as if birth rates plummet when gay people can marry.

RayM wrote: »

Gay adoption and gay marriage are two separate arguments. It's likely that the adoption issue (which doesn't require a referendum) will be legislated for before any referendum on marriage rights.

If I may be a bit of a pedant, it's not even gay adoption. It's parenting by gay couples. There are 100s of children being raised by gay couples in Ireland right now, and only a handful of those children were adopted. In most cases, it seems that gay couples become parents because of children from a previous opposite sex relationship. Some children are also placed with gay couples by the HSE for fostering.

However, that's not to take away from your wider point, that they are two separate issues. The ban on same sex marriage clearly doesn't stop gay couples becoming parents. And even if a same sex marriage referendum were rejected, the Govt would still have to introduce some form of legislation to equalise the rights of children with gay parents with those of children with heterosexual parents. The alternative is to just let those children in a legal limbo, which hardly seems fair to them.

For all of Paddy's talk of thinking about the children last night, he seems unconcerned with making things better for the children being raised by gay couples right now.

RobertKK

RayM wrote: »

It absolutely does. There are no valid arguments against same sex marriage.

Gay adoption and gay marriage are two separate arguments. It's likely that the adoption issue (which doesn't require a referendum) will be legislated for before any referendum on marriage rights.

If you vote against same sex marriage in the forthcoming referendum, you are a bigot.

Having a traditional view of marriage doesn't make one a bigot, simply because you believe it makes them a bigot.
We could go around calling everyone a bigot for not supporting what we believe. Calling someone a name for not supporting what you want or believe doesn't exactly help the argument for same sex marriage.
I know from gay people I follow on twitter that a lot of them don't support same sex marriage. I think a referendum will fail as the arguments for are not convincing.

Realt Dearg Sec

RobertKK wrote: »

I know from gay people I follow on twitter that a lot of them don't support same sex marriage.

Could you name a few of these twitter feeds?

hotmail.com

RobertKK wrote: »

Having a traditional view of marriage doesn't make one a bigot, simply because you believe it makes them a bigot.
We could go around calling everyone a bigot for not supporting what we believe. Calling someone a name for not supporting what you want or believe doesn't exactly help the argument for same sex marriage.
I know from gay people I follow on twitter that a lot of them don't support same sex marriage. I think a referendum will fail as the arguments for are not convincing.

you are in favour of the traditional marriage, grand, so just don't marry a gay man then and this won't bother you. Imposing discriminatory beliefs on people based on ignorance is bigotry.

RayM

RobertKK wrote: »

Having a traditional view of marriage doesn't make one a bigot, simply because you believe it makes them a bigot.
We could go around calling everyone a bigot for not supporting what we believe. Calling someone a name for not supporting what you want or believe doesn't exactly help the argument for same sex marriage.

There's nothing bigoted about having a traditional view of marriage. Unless, of course, you regard those views as being more important than other people's rights - rights which do not impinge upon you in any way. In which case, you're definitely a bigot.

RobertKK wrote:

I know from gay people I follow on twitter that a lot of them don't support same sex marriage. I think a referendum will fail as the arguments for are not convincing.

But there isn't a single valid argument in favour of denying marriage rights to same-sex couples.

RobertKK

hotmail.com wrote: »

you are in favour of the traditional marriage, grand, so just don't marry a gay man then and this won't bother you. Imposing discriminatory beliefs on people based on ignorance is bigotry.

It is not ignorance, just look where these strong arguments for same sex marriage are here.
People who are for it calling other people ignorant and a bigot. These arguments will not win a referendum.
Then it was said earlier the arguments against are bin existent, yet the arguments used to support it are if you are against it you are a bigot.
If it was so great one wouldn't have to resort to that.

hotmail.com

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not ignorance, just look where these strong arguments for same sex marriage are here.
People who are for it calling other people ignorant and a bigot. These arguments will not win a referendum.
Then it was said earlier the arguments against are bin existent, yet the arguments used to support it are if you are against it you are a bigot.
If it was so great one wouldn't have to resort to that.

I'm outa here. Peace. Live and let live. Stay off twitter.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

Having a traditional view of marriage doesn't make one a bigot, simply because you believe it makes them a bigot.
We could go around calling everyone a bigot for not supporting what we believe. Calling someone a name for not supporting what you want or believe doesn't exactly help the argument for same sex marriage.

I'd agree that merely holding a view isn't bigotry. For me, someone is a bigot when they continue to hold that view even when the flaws have been clearly pointed out to them.

For example, the view that marriage is about having and raising your own biological children is riddled with holes. For one, only married couples can adopt jointly, something that flies in the face of marriage being about raising your own children. Another is that couples are never asked about their desire or suitability to be parents when they apply to marry; it's not even a tick box on a form. And there isn't even an upper age limit on marriage, despite thousands of elderly people getting married every year (and not necessarily to each other either).

In fact the only time the ability to have children is trotted out as a barrier to marriage is for gay couples. Everyone else gets off scot free. That's bigotry, pure and simple.

RobertKK wrote: »

I know from gay people I follow on twitter that a lot of them don't support same sex marriage. I think a referendum will fail as the arguments for are not convincing.

For every gay person you claim doesn't support same sex marriage, there are at least 5 heterosexual people who do. This is a human rights issue, the audience is far wider than you may think.

By the way, don't get too caught up in the fact that some gay people are against marriage equality. 100 years ago, hundreds of women actively campaigned against women's suffrage. It doesn't mean they were right though.

RayM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not ignorance, just look where these strong arguments for same sex marriage are here.
People who are for it calling other people ignorant and a bigot. These arguments will not win a referendum.
Then it was said earlier the arguments against are bin existent, yet the arguments used to support it are if you are against it you are a bigot.
If it was so great one wouldn't have to resort to that.

On what specific basis do you oppose same sex marriage? The "won't somebody please think of the children?" nonsense is a separate argument altogether - because marriage isn't primarily about having children. In what way would extending marriage rights to same sex couples impinge upon your own rights?

Realt Dearg Sec wrote:

Could you name a few of these twitter feeds?

I can name two. Paddy Manning and Richard Waghorne. Both of whom are typical extreme-right-wing dullards who don't believe an opinion is worth holding unless it's utterly obnoxious.

RobertKK

RayM wrote: »

On what specific basis do you oppose same sex marriage? The "won't somebody please think of the children?" nonsense is a separate argument altogether - because marriage isn't primarily about having children. In what way would extending marriage rights to same sex couples impinge upon your own rights?



I can name two. Paddy Manning and Richard Waghorne. Both of whom are typical extreme-right-wing dullards who don't believe an opinion is worth holding unless it's utterly obnoxious.

I was brought up by my biological parents who were married and who provided a very stable childhood. The fact they were married and my biological parents it was something that gave one comfort, and they believed in marriage, not the you can get married and then divorced later if you choose.
If I was back to when I was a child and a same sex couple who were married, looked after me and loved me, I would be denied either a male role model as a parent or a female role model.

We can look at the abuse in the Catholic church, the trust given to it allowed paedophiles abuse the church so it could abuse children and the embarrassment of it allowed wrongful acts to be done which helped to prolong the abuse.
I can see same sex marriage being used by paedophiles, and just like good priests who were tarnished by the those who did wrong, I think in the future we will see how paedophiles who are mostly men will use same sex marriage as a means to gain access to children.
We know from experiences within traditional type of marriage that this type of abuse can go on for years for the child within the family setting.
I think same sex marriage will be abused by paedophiles, the same way they abused the church so they could gain access to children.
Paedophiles will go to where they can get access and given most paedophiles are men, it would make sense for paedophiles to move to this area of society, because I think it will be extremely unpopular to even suggest this, but in the end it will be the gay community who like the church will end up wrongly with all including the good tarnished by the those who used them to get access to children.
Lets have same sex marriage so we can give homosexuals a bad name when some use them to do wrong.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/babies-toddlers-becoming-targets-paedophiles/1927425/

btw they were active in gay rights and were in a public campaign "two dads are better than one"

Now they are in jail for 40 years for using their adopted child for paedophilia. If the gay community wants people to use them and abuse their trust then yes gay marriage and adoption makes sense.
Because their trust will be abused and I know as a church goer, it doesn't do you any good when your local priest who never did wrong is being generalised as a paedophile by people, some you see on boards doing it.
Men joined the priesthood so to abuse children, they will do the same when they can marry eachother and use that as an access point to having children.

So children are key to the same sex marriage debate, apart from depriving a child of a biological parent. Your honest to good same sex couple will have men who will use same sex marriage for something totally not intended.

There will be no woman with the child when alone with the man as is the case with the rules in the church where a child cannot be alone with the priest, and where women are used as a protection for the child and for the priest from claims of abuse.

Paedophiles used swimming coaching for abuse. There is a gaping hole with same sex marriage and adoption for paedophiles to exploit.
I'm sorry I had to bring this up and it will be denied, the good same sex couples are going to end up exploited.

NuMarvel

Let's just ban all men from marriage and raising children, just to be sure. Single fathers should be first in line, yes?

RobertKK

NuMarvel wrote: »

Let's just ban all men from marriage and raising children, just to be sure. Single fathers should be first in line, yes?

I knew what I posted would be unpopular. But we know from experience how exploitative paedophiles are.
I note you didn't deny that same sex marriage can and will be exploited.
This is an argument that should be looked at, if one cares about same sex couples they should also look to how they can be exploited and have that part of the debate.
We can stick our heads in the sand, call people bigots who are against same sex marriage and pretend it will all be roses and light.
Same sex marriage will not be the same as heterosexual marriage. One is far easier to be abused by the wrong type of people and that should be part of the debate, unless we want to ignore it and then feign shock and horror when paedophiles used same sex marriage for nefarious means. This in itself should be discussed as genuine as good same sex couples will end stigmatised similar to how good priests were, due to the actions of paedophiles.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

I knew what I posted would be unpopular. But we know from experience how exploitative paedophiles are.
I note you didn't deny that same sex marriage can and will be exploited.
This is an argument that should be looked at, if one cares about same sex couples they should also look to how they can be exploited and have that part of the debate.
We can stick our heads in the sand, call people bigots who are against same sex marriage and pretend it will all be roses and light.
Same sex marriage will not be the same as heterosexual marriage. One is far easier to be abused by the wrong type of people and that should be part of the debate, unless we want to ignore it and then feign shock and horror when paedophiles used same sex marriage for nefarious means. This in itself should be discussed as genuine as good same sex couples will end stigmatised similar to how good priests were, due to the actions of paedophiles.

I didn't deny it because you've shown no proof of it. There are well over a dozen countries in the world where same sex marriage is allowed, so you should be able to find some proof that same sex marriage makes this kind of activity "far easier".

The article you linked to doesn't count, because the couple in question weren't married and lived in Australia where same sex marriage isn't permitted.

RobertKK

NuMarvel wrote: »

I didn't deny it because you've shown no proof of it. There are well over a dozen countries in the world where same sex marriage is allowed, so you should be able to find some proof that same sex marriage makes this kind of activity "far easier".

The article you linked to doesn't count, because the couple in question weren't married and lived in Australia where same sex marriage isn't permitted.

Yes paedophiles are out advertising it, just like they advertised it for years when happening in the church, the bbc, swimming and elsewhere, just give it time. You can choose to believe paedophiles will choose to avoid a situation where they can gain trust and use it to gain access to children.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes paedophiles are out advertising it, just like they advertised it for years when happening in the church, the bbc, swimming and elsewhere, just give it time. You can choose to believe paedophiles will choose to avoid a situation where they can gain trust and use it to gain access to children.

Just give it time? Same sex marriage has been around for more than a decade. Other forms of legal recognition have been around for longer. Surely be there's at least one country in all of those that you can point to to show same sex marriage, or something close to it, has made pedophilia "far easier".

If you can't, then I think you should withdraw the assertion until you can prove it.

Callan57

It's a sad fact that the vast majority of child abusers are married hetereosexual men. In fact it could be equally argued that the conventional marriage is a perfect cover for a paedophile - giving, as it does, unlimited access to children & an assumption of innocence.

RobertKK

NuMarvel wrote: »

Just give it time? Same sex marriage has been around for more than a decade. Other forms of legal recognition have been around for longer. Surely be there's at least one country in all of those that you can point to to show same sex marriage, or something close to it, has made pedophilia "far easier".

If you can't, then I think you should withdraw the assertion until you can prove it.

I won't withdraw it, the same reason paedophiles joined the priesthood is the same reason paedophiles will marry and adopt children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480673/Abuse-sanity-The-truth-council-allowed-paedophile-gay-couple-adopt.html
Over in the UK, fostering children to paedophiles to look after. They were given access to 18 children in 15 months. A same sex paedophile couple who only went into fostering vunerable children so they could abuse them.
They were left to abuse as there was a fear there would be accusations of discrimination given they were a same sex couple.:
They had, the report concluded, left the couple free to sexually abuse youngsters in their care because of fears of discrimination if they launched an investigation.
By virtue of their sexuality, the report suggested, the men were "trophy carers" who were not subject to the same rigorous assessment as others.
At a time when gay couples can legally adopt children for the first time, the criticism raises serious questions about vetting procedures, as well as
fears that the crimes of two men could have repercussions for genuine gay foster parents.

In my original link, that couple were described on Australian TV as providing an idyllic upbringing for the child they looked after and how great they were.
Three years later getting 40 years in jail for bringing a child into the world using a surrogate mother with the sole intention of abusing the child.
“Becoming gay parents was hard work for Pete and Mark but they’d do it all over again if they had to,” the ABC journalist wrote. “It’s a happy, relaxed family scene. But it wasn’t an easy road to get there. After many hurdles [their son] was born by surrogacy in Russia.” -


We can all be PC and pretend gay adoption and the stability a marriage should provide won't be abused in such a manner.

hotmail.com

David Quinn on tonight.

Roger_007

Is this guy a Moslem?.......religious freedom my ar$e!

NoClues

Roger_007 wrote: »

Is this guy a Moslem?.......religious freedom my ar$e!

He sounds like the type who wouldn't give a sh1te if ya insulted the catholic church, but insult the great prophet mohammad and I'll behead you

take everything

This is depressing.
One worse than the other.