Gay Marriage

_Redzer_

SoulandForm wrote: »

Why do you say that?

Because it's pretty much deserved

Memnoch

SoulandForm wrote: »

Why do you say that?

Because they are short-sighted, narrow-minded and entirely the architects of their own misery.

They should consider moving to Russia where they can join Putin in keeping children safe from the gays.

Links234

walrusgumble wrote: »

Considering gay people have destroyed the Church

We have?

Citation very much needed, because I think celebration would be in order :pac:

Annasopra

Links234 wrote: »

We have?

Citation very much needed, because I think celebration would be in order :pac:

It's hard to know what was meant by that statement.

PopePalpatine

_Redzer_ wrote: »

What's really sad is that there are actually people out there who are genuinely saddened at the thought of the referendum passing for SSM.

It's almost as saddening as f*cked up people thinking depression is a sin, like S&F.

RobertKK

K-9 wrote: »

What gay people have destroyed the Church?

I am just wondering about this, if over 80% of all abuse in the church was male sexually abusing another male, with preference for male victims only, does this mean there were abusers who were gay and by far the biggest amount of the abusers?
Then we had former President Mary McAleese say a lot of priests are gay.

This leads to another point, the church now has implemented a child protection policy, where no child is left alone with a priest, to safeguard both child and priest - from abuse or false allegation.

Given the church had a problem with abuse given the trust it had, and given the respectability Marriage would give as in commitment/loving and so on, it is very possible the gay community will find itself in the midst of a child abuse scandal in the future, when abusers of underage people, will get together and use same sex marriage not because they love one another, but because it allows access to children.
There are two known cases in Australia and the UK so far, people were afraid of being called homophobic in one case which allowed abuse to continue.
The government here plan to change the laws regarding children which along with the referendum if passed, will make it easier for paedophiles to marry one another and then adopt children.

People trusted the church and were afraid to question the church, the respect and trust allowed paedophiles to join and to abuse, and then the shame of it allowed it to continue.
I fear the same for genuine same sex couples, there will be people who will abuse it and it is something no one in the media wants to discuss.

Paedophiles must love what is being planned, it will give them a cover they can use, given the cover of the church has been blown wide open with measures implemented to make it near impossible.

Nodin

RobertKK wrote: »

I am just wondering about this, if over 80% of all abuse in the church was male sexually abusing another male, with preference for male victims only, does this mean there were abusers who were gay and by far the biggest amount of the abusers?
Then we had former President Mary McAleese say a lot of priests are gay.

A sexual attraction to underage pre-pubescent children = paedophilia. It is not homosexuality. Were we to extend your notion, men who molest underage pre-pubescent girls would be termed heterosexuals.

RobertKK wrote:

Given the church had a problem with abuse given the trust it had, and given the respectability Marriage would give as in commitment/loving and so on, it is very possible the gay community will find itself in the midst of a child abuse scandal in the future, when abusers of underage people, will get together and use same sex marriage not because they love one another, but because it allows access to children.

....as pointed out earlier in the thread, adoption by gay couples will be introduced separately to gay marriage and is a separate issue.

RobertKK

Nodin wrote: »

A sexual attraction to underage pre-pubescent children = paedophilia. It is not homosexuality. Were we to extend your notion, men who molest underage pre-pubescent girls would be termed heterosexuals.



....as pointed out earlier in the thread, adoption by gay couples will be introduced separately to gay marriage and is a separate issue.

But there is a name for every type of sexual preference.
Paedophile - 12 years or younger
Hebephilia - pre-pubescent boys over 12 years of age
Ephebophilia - 15 to 19 year olds
Teleiophilia - adults
Gerontophilia - the elderly.

So within all of these one can have an opposite sex preference or a same sex preference, maybe both, but you say having a same sex preference is not homosexual....I think men are far more likely to abuse children than women are, but in the church it now forbidden to leave children alone with a priest because of the abuse scandal, while the state now is planning same sex mariage which I believe will make it easier for the couple to adopt, I expect it will be like the church - most of the priests were genuine good people, it will be the same for same sex couples, but the state is going to open a door to abuse that the church is closing.


The government say the adoption issue will have to be sorted before a referendum, so in reality they are linked. Child abusers will be all for a change in the laws as planned by the government, all an abuser needs to do is stay below the radar and when laws change, then form a union with another abuser (most likely to be two men) and abuse the boy or girl they are given access to, because there are no records they have a sexual interest in underage people.

I have seen how these abusers used the church - the trust and respectability to abuse. They will use SSM to do the same and ironically it is the people who cried for SSM who will have allowed both good homosexual people and children to be abused, as there is nothing to prevent this from happening.
I actually fear for homosexuals in the future. I don't want them to go through what good proiests have had to go through, where people generalise them as being paedophiles.
I think people should be careful what they wish for, people say these are rights, but the loopholes it allows unintentionally are quite devastating for all concerned.

Corkfeen

walrusgumble wrote: »

If they were smart, they would keep it to themselves, and allow the gay marriage proponents to continue to get up the noses of Middle Ireland.

Considering gay people have destroyed the Church, I'd imagine the Church will do it's party piece on move on. People are well aware of their stance.

Think you're somewhat confused...

walrusgumble wrote: »

There are Plenty of Taxation and social welfare Reasons to oppose gay marriage.

From a Constitutional point, why should a Gay couple , by getting "married" enjoy better Constitutional rights than a de facto couple with children?


There is also the reality, that despite idiotic limp wristed wishy washy notions, people of the world are NOT the same as eachother. People have different characteristics and roles to play in the social order. It is a nonsense to say every one is the same. That is rubbish and grossly ill informed tosh. Legal Equity acknowledges that. You treat like for like and dislikes differently

All the gay groups have got going for them are emotional and illogical arguments about "love" , being "mean", having "hatred", and the laughable notion that a State Marriage, a public declaration of a union which enjoys important Constitutional priviledges, is no one's business. They also then, pathetically throw in delussion that the State is actually truely Secular and lump guilt trips about how these issues will hurt gays feelings and maybe worse (mental stability issues? Maybe marriage aint for some of the them)

I cordially request you to explain your logical reason to oppose it.

walrusgumble wrote: »

LOL

I am referring to the abortion debate of the 1980's and 1990's!


You need to educate yourself on what the Irish law says on Equality. It is immensely insulting to suggest that gay couples could possibly be the same or similar to the majority of hetrosexual couples. Pure anti hetrosexual bigotary .

Gilmore, made it clear, that this issue was the biggest human rights issue for the 21st Century. It is a nonsense statement.

It is the biggest issue for Labour in the 21 st Century because it is the only thing that is keeping them from pulling the pulg on government and facing justified slaughter at the elections.

Moreover, I would not worry too much. We WON'T see this referendum in 2015!

We will see this referendum in 2015. Nobody is antiheterosexual although a person who views gay people to be inferior such as yourself are homophobic.

SoulandForm wrote: »

I agree with most of what you said however I dont think you are correct here. Unfortunately I think we will- Labour have sacrificed a lot in terms of seeking social justice to Fine Gael in order to persue their other agenda and will take a hammering in the polls for doing so, they will have their referendum. Also probably sadly it will pass given the current mood.

Well if this is the opposition that can be mustered. Wonderful!

Nodin

RobertKK wrote: »

But there is a name for every type of sexual preference.
Paedophile - 12 years or younger
Hebephilia - pre-pubescent boys over 12 years of age
Ephebophilia - 15 to 19 year olds
Teleiophilia - adults
Gerontophilia - the elderly.

So within all of these one can have an opposite sex preference or a same sex preference, maybe both, but you say having a same sex preference is not homosexual...............

I'm going to explain this one last time. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Homosexuality is an attraction to adults of the same sex.

Nodin

Robertkk wrote:

The government say the adoption issue will have to be sorted before a referendum, so in reality they are linked

.

But if the referendum is never held, is held but fails, gay adoption will come in anyway. Thus there is no link.

FunLover18

RobertKK wrote: »

Given the church had a problem with abuse given the trust it had, and given the respectability Marriage would give as in commitment/loving and so on, it is very possible the gay community will find itself in the midst of a child abuse scandal in the future, when abusers of underage people, will get together and use same sex marriage not because they love one another, but because it allows access to children.
There are two known cases in Australia and the UK so far, people were afraid of being called homophobic in one case which allowed abuse to continue.
The government here plan to change the laws regarding children which along with the referendum if passed, will make it easier for paedophiles to marry one another and then adopt children.

But this isn't just a homosexual problem. We've already said that homosexuals and paedophiles aren't the same. I'd put money down that there are more cases of fathers sexually abusing their biological children than there are of paedophiles adopting.

Cases of paedophiles being allowed to adopt children is not a con of gay marriage it is a major flaw in the adoption process.

Zubeneschamali

SoulandForm wrote: »

Why do you say that?

I like it when society moves away from bigotry and the bigots are sad.

RobertKK

Nodin wrote: »

I'm going to explain this one last time. Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Homosexuality is an attraction to adults of the same sex.

But what you are arguing is equivalent to say a teleiophile cannot be homosexual because they are a teleiophile. A paedophile can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Just like a teleiophile can be.


I also think people don't choose to be homosexual, it is the way they were born, and they don't suddenly have this homosexual aattraction as an adult, they will have known as a child in most cases, because being heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual is seperate from being a teleiophile, paedophile or whatever else.

Nodin wrote: »

.

But if the referendum is never held, is held but fails, gay adoption will come in anyway. Thus there is no link.

The adoption changes are being made though because of the referendum, otherwise, if the referendum passes, given the same marriage right as heterosexuals, the law would be in conflict with the constitutional change a referendum would bring.
So to avoid that the changes are being made before the referendum, which is putting the cart before the horse.
No referendum and this would not be happening.

FunLover18 wrote: »

But this isn't just a homosexual problem. We've already said that homosexuals and paedophiles aren't the same. I'd put money down that there are more cases of fathers sexually abusing their biological children than there are of paedophiles adopting.

Cases of paedophiles being allowed to adopt children is not a con of gay marriage it is a major flaw in the adoption process.

But then in a heterosexual case of paedophilia last week, a girl was raped every sort of way by a man who mother married. How do we know that he didn't pretend to love the mother and married her for the rights it brought which gave him easy access to her daughter.
This happened in a case in Australia, a high profile same sex marriage advocate in the media, who is now in jail, he had a child and he married a paedophile and went abroad with the child so other paedophiles could also abuse the child, horrific case.
UIn Englans, two paedophiles married (abused ssm) and they fostered children, abused upto 18 children if I remember the case correctly, a social worker was concerned bnut feared being seen as homophobic if she raised her concerned, which allowed the abuse to continue longer it should have.

Yes, there is a lot of reasons to worry about children and what they are subjected to from both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
But SSM with adoption rights is perfect for those who want to abuse it. It will be like that case in England where people will be afraid as being seen to be homophobic when they have a genuine concern.
I think it is easier to report a heterosexual case of abuse as you wouldn't be under suspicion of being homophobic.
Most people don't want to be labelled in a negative manner.

FunLover18

RobertKK wrote: »

But then in a heterosexual case of paedophilia last week, a girl was raped every sort of way by a man who mother married. How do we know that he didn't pretend to love the mother and married her for the rights it brought which gave him easy access to her daughter.
This happened in a case in Australia, a high profile same sex marriage advocate in the media, who is now in jail, he had a child and he married a paedophile and went abroad with the child so other paedophiles could also abuse the child, horrific case.
UIn Englans, two paedophiles married (abused ssm) and they fostered children, abused upto 18 children if I remember the case correctly, a social worker was concerned bnut feared being seen as homophobic if she raised her concerned, which allowed the abuse to continue longer it should have.

Yes, there is a lot of reasons to worry about children and what they are subjected to from both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
But SSM with adoption rights is perfect for those who want to abuse it. It will be like that case in England where people will be afraid as being seen to be homophobic when they have a genuine concern.
I think it is easier to report a heterosexual case of abuse as you wouldn't be under suspicion of being homophobic.
Most people don't want to be labelled in a negative manner.

But you've just proved my point with your first example, it's not exclusive the homosexuals. Yet you're isolating the homosexuals as they are somehow more likely to abuse the system. SSM is not the flaw in the system, it's not like two single paedophiles go up to an adoption agency get turned away, meet, get married, return and the adoption agency says "Oh you're married, congratulations! Here have a child!" The flaw in the system that allows for the cases you mentioned above is that the screening done by the agencies isn't up to standard. The solution isn't to say "Well the agencies can't tell a married couple in love from a pair of paedos, so let's just not allow the gays to marry, that way they won't have to tell the difference". The solution is to put stricter screening in place, not just for SSM but for all couples who wish to adopt or foster.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

I am just wondering about this, if over 80% of all abuse in the church was male sexually abusing another male, with preference for male victims only, does this mean there were abusers who were gay and by far the biggest amount of the abusers?
Then we had former President Mary McAleese say a lot of priests are gay.

No. It means the priests were paedophiles!

RobertKK wrote: »

Given the church had a problem with abuse given the trust it had, and given the respectability Marriage would give as in commitment/loving and so on, it is very possible the gay community will find itself in the midst of a child abuse scandal in the future, when abusers of underage people, will get together and use same sex marriage not because they love one another, but because it allows access to children.

Everything is possible. This is possible, but remotely possible because adoption laws are quite stringent. People do not just get approved overnight for adoption so I highly doubt that vetting procedures would let such an incident slip through. Of course heterosexual men could do this too. Perhaps we should ban all men from parenting? To be honest this suggestion seems very far fetched to me and about as ludicrous as the Former Minister Mary Hanafin suggesting people would change their gender to fiddle social welfare.

RobertKK wrote: »

I fear the same for genuine same sex couples, there will be people who will abuse it and it is something no one in the media wants to discuss.

I'm really not sure if you do genuinely fear for genuine same sex couples. I mean why on earth would you be making quite frankly offensive paralells between gay adult males and paedophiles if you genuinely feared for them.

RobertKK

FunLover18 wrote: »

But you've just proved my point with your first example, it's not exclusive the homosexuals. Yet you're isolating the homosexuals as they are somehow more likely to abuse the system. SSM is not the flaw in the system, it's not like two single paedophiles go up to an adoption agency get turned away, meet, get married, return and the adoption agency says "Oh you're married, congratulations! Here have a child!" The flaw in the system that allows for the cases you mentioned above is that the screening done by the agencies isn't up to standard. The solution isn't to say "Well the agencies can't tell a married couple in love from a pair of paedos, so let's just not allow the gays to marry, that way they won't have to tell the difference". The solution is to put stricter screening in place, not just for SSM but for all couples who wish to adopt or foster.

I never argued it was exclusive to homosexuals, but paedophiles are far more likely to be men, thus SSM with adoption rights is a dream for abusers of those who are underage. It will be open for a lot of abuse, which will be at the expense in time of the good same sex couples, just like it was with the good priests who had to endure the sex scandals where some people still generalise priests as being sex abusers.

In the church it is women who are used for child protection, one can't put a woman in the home of two men who have been given a child through adoption or fostering to make sure nothing happens. This is the extreme measure the church had to make.
If you are a paedophile, well the church is a lost cause with the changes, while same sex adoption and marriage, is an avenue that is opening up for two men who have no record of abuse to get access to children.
Two men marrying will not necessarily mean they are homosexual, two heterosexual men could marry with a view to adoption and abuse.
Paedophiles whether heterosexual or homosexual will do anything to abuse - join the priesthood, become swimming coaches, marry someone with a child, abuse their own children. The fact is changes in the law will open up a new route for abusers whether they are two heterosexual or homosexual paedophile, who will use the banner of same sex and adoption as a means to an end.

How do you screen out abusers who have stayed under the radar? The fact is most cases of abuse stay below the radar.

RobertKK

mango salsa wrote: »

No. It means the priests were paedophiles!



Everything is possible. This is possible, but remotely possible because adoption laws are quite stringent. People do not just get approved overnight for adoption so I highly doubt that vetting procedures would let such an incident slip through. Of course heterosexual men could do this too. Perhaps we should ban all men from parenting? To be honest this suggestion seems very far fetched to me and about as ludicrous as the Former Minister Mary Hanafin suggesting people would change their gender to fiddle social welfare.



I'm really not sure if you do genuinely fear for genuine same sex couples. I mean why on earth would you be making quite frankly offensive paralells between gay adult males and paedophiles if you genuinely feared for them.

You think far fetched?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-10/gorman-second-thoughts/4809582

In 2010 Ginger Gorman interviewed a gay couple about their struggle to become parents. When the men were uncovered as paedophiles Gorman was left with a deep sense of grief for the boy and questioned whether there was anything she could have done.
Dear Boy 1, you've become a number. Since your case ended up in court, I'm not allowed to identify you. But I know your name. In my head I say your name. I can see your face, clear as day. I see your sweet, shining eyes and your cheeky smile. I can even hear your little voice, imploring me to come and see your baby chickens. If I knew then what I know now, I would have done anything to stop the heinous crimes being perpetrated against you. I would have done anything to end your misery. But I didn't know. I had no idea. I'm so sorry.
In 2010 I interviewed two gay dads about their struggle to have a child via surrogacy. Those two men turned out to be paedophiles. The crimes they committed against their son are so horrendous that it's hard to even comprehend them.

This will happen over and over again, there is nothing to stop it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522158/Gay-couple-jailed-for-abusing-their-foster-children.html

Two homosexual men who sexually abused young children placed in their foster care were jailed yesterday.

Ian Wathey, 41, and his partner Craig Faunch, 32, were found guilty of a string of offences against four boys aged between eight and 14.


The pair used the boys for sexual gratification within months of being approved as foster carers by Wakefield council.

These cases were uncovered after the abuse happened, there is nothing to stop abusers abusing the system.

I do fear for same sex couples, I know how I felt about good priests who never abused and now have to have a person with them everytime there is a child around to offer protection to the child and to the priest from a false allegation.
They are reminded all the time of the abuse and how they are not to be trusted, even though they did nothing wrong.
Abusers of underage people did this to them, they did nothing wrong but do be generalised as abusers by some.
The loophole in the church has been closed that allowed abuse, while now abusers can use adoption and same sex marriage to do to homosexuals what they did to priests.
It could end up like the church in a few decades times the whole thing blows open when the damage is done. It is a massive loophole the state is creating for abusers to benefit from.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

You think far fetched?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-10/gorman-second-thoughts/4809582

This will happen over and over again, there is nothing to stop it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522158/Gay-couple-jailed-for-abusing-their-foster-children.html

These cases were uncovered after the abuse happened, there is nothing to stop abusers abusing the system.

I do fear for same sex couples, I know how I felt about good priests who never abused and now have to have a person with them everytime there is a child around to offer protection to the child and to the priest from a false allegation.
They are reminded all the time of the abuse and how they are not to be trusted, even though they did nothing wrong.
Abusers of underage people did this to them, they did nothing wrong but do be generalised as abusers by some.
The loophole in the church has been closed that allowed abuse, while now abusers can use adoption and same sex marriage to do to homosexuals what they did to priests.
It could end up like the church in a few decades times the whole thing blows open when the damage is done. It is a massive loophole the state is creating for abusers to benefit from.

I don't believe your concern is in anyway genuine at all. You are trying to suggest that one or two examples will somehow open up a plethora of cases for this to happen and you are completely ignoring the fact that adoption vetting is a difficult process that is designed to ensure children are placed in suitable homes. Children are not just adopted by married couppes currently overnight. There is a stringent process of adoption. You are scaremongering. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Nodin

mango salsa wrote: »

I don't believe your concern is in anyway genuine at all. You are trying to suggest that one or two examples will somehow open up a plethora of cases for this to happen and you are completely ignoring the fact that adoption vetting is a difficult process that is designed to ensure children are placed in suitable homes. Children are not just adopted by married couppes currently overnight. There is a stringent process of adoption. You are scaremongering. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Every objection thus far raised could be used against heterosexual marriage/fostering etc.

Annasopra

Nodin wrote: »

Every objection thus far raised could be used against heterosexual marriage/fostering etc.

Of course and I would love some proof of the statement that nothing can stop abusers abusing the system.

Nodin

mango salsa wrote: »

Of course and I would love some proof of the statement that nothing can stop abusers abusing the system.

....well - taking that as true for the sake of argument - then one should shut down all "heterosexual" couples access to marriage, adoption, foster and so on. As he fails to follow through on his own "logic", its fairly obvious its scare-mongering and argument by defamation.

returnNull

Nodin wrote: »

Every objection thus far raised could be used against heterosexual marriage/fostering etc.

very true,wonder how many hits Id get if I googled heterosexual child abusers.

Some of the ignorance Ive seen posted on this thread leaves me with little faith in mankind.

Gay marriage wont be the end of the world and it will only affect a small minority(gay couples),for heterosexual people/couples life will continue on and claiming otherwise is fearmongering.

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

I never argued it was exclusive to homosexuals, but paedophiles are far more likely to be men, thus SSM with adoption rights is a dream for abusers of those who are underage. It will be open for a lot of abuse, which will be at the expense in time of the good same sex couples, just like it was with the good priests who had to endure the sex scandals where some people still generalise priests as being sex abusers.

In the church it is women who are used for child protection, one can't put a woman in the home of two men who have been given a child through adoption or fostering to make sure nothing happens. This is the extreme measure the church had to make.
If you are a paedophile, well the church is a lost cause with the changes, while same sex adoption and marriage, is an avenue that is opening up for two men who have no record of abuse to get access to children.
Two men marrying will not necessarily mean they are homosexual, two heterosexual men could marry with a view to adoption and abuse.
Paedophiles whether heterosexual or homosexual will do anything to abuse - join the priesthood, become swimming coaches, marry someone with a child, abuse their own children. The fact is changes in the law will open up a new route for abusers whether they are two heterosexual or homosexual paedophile, who will use the banner of same sex and adoption as a means to an end.

How do you screen out abusers who have stayed under the radar? The fact is most cases of abuse stay below the radar.

Single people can already adopt, Colm O'Gorman would be a high profile example if I'm correct, he lives with his partner and 2 children. You seem to be suggesting gay marriage will open up some new route, gay adoption already exists in practice.

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

A sexual attraction to underage pre-pubescent children = paedophilia. It is not homosexuality. Were we to extend your notion, men who molest underage pre-pubescent girls would be termed heterosexuals

Only most of the abuse was of post-pubescent children/young adults so Im afraid his argument stands. Its sadly ironic that those most willing to attack the RCC over what happened (and in most cases probably justly) are the very last ones to attack the movement to accept homosexuality (which raises serious questions about their motives in attacking the RCC).

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Its sadly ironic that those most willing to attack the RCC over what happened (and in most cases probably justly) are the very last ones to attack the movement to accept homosexuality (which raises serious questions about their motives in attacking the RCC).

It's only ironic if you insist on continuing to conflate homosexuality and paedophilia, which conflation is nothing other than homophobia in its most disgusting expression.

Zubeneschamali

SoulandForm wrote: »

Only most of the abuse was of post-pubescent children/young adults so Im afraid his argument stands. Its sadly ironic that those most willing to attack the RCC over what happened (and in most cases probably justly) are the very last ones to attack the movement to accept homosexuality (which raises serious questions about their motives in attacking the RCC).

See, you are one of those people that I sincerely hope are saddened when we introduce equal rights for gays.

Actually, I hope you are sickened.

K-9

SoulandForm wrote: »

Only most of the abuse was of post-pubescent children/young adults so Im afraid his argument stands. Its sadly ironic that those most willing to attack the RCC over what happened (and in most cases probably justly) are the very last ones to attack the movement to accept homosexuality (which raises serious questions about their motives in attacking the RCC).

Mod:

You have any statistics to back up it was mostly post-pubescent children/young adults? Before the thread goes down that path, I'd like to see some evidence, if it's your opinion fair enough, but you seem to have clearly stated that as true.

SoulandForm

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

You have any statistics to back up it was mostly post-pubescent children/young adults? Before the thread goes down that path, I'd like to see some evidence, if it's your opinion fair enough, but you seem to have clearly stated that as true.

http://www.thejournal.ie/causes-of-clerical-child-abuse-in-us-revealed-by-new-report-139706-May2011/

"Most abusive priests were “not paedophiles”, if paedophilia is defined as having desires towards prepubescent children; and most of their victims were adolescents."

It had a lot to do with the elite that took power after the defeat of the Irish Republic- working class children being interned in work camps to work for the winners of the "civil war rather than Roman Catholicism as such. Infact the Hierarchy put their class interests before the interests of the Christian religion and yet made out that the interests of their class were the interests of Christ and so destroyed Roman Catholicism in Ireland.

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/causes-of-clerical-child-abuse-in-us-revealed-by-new-report-139706-May2011/

"Most abusive priests were “not paedophiles”, if paedophilia is defined as having desires towards prepubescent children; and most of their victims were adolescents."

Homosexuality is the attraction to those of the same sex, not the underage. I don't see why I have to keep stating this.

K-9

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/causes-of-clerical-child-abuse-in-us-revealed-by-new-report-139706-May2011/

"Most abusive priests were “not paedophiles”, if paedophilia is defined as having desires towards prepubescent children; and most of their victims were adolescents."

It had a lot to do with the elite that took power after the defeat of the Irish Republic- working class children being interned in work camps to work for the winners of the "civil war rather than Roman Catholicism as such. Infact the Hierarchy put their class interests before the interests of the Christian religion and yet made out that the interests of their class were the interests of Christ and so destroyed Roman Catholicism in Ireland.

OK, thank you, the thing is, if we take that link seriously, you obviously do, it also states:

Whether a priest was homosexual did not make them more or less likely to become an abuser. That the vast majority of the victims – 81 per cent – were boys is simply down to priests having more contact with them. Abuse is “a crime of opportunity,” a summary of the findings states

.

The same report you cite as evidence that most priests weren't paedophiles also says homosexuality had little or no affect on abuse.

So you've a dilemna here, if you are saying paedophilia wasn't a factor in the majority of cases, the same report you rely on states homosexuality wasn't either.

So you've a problem here, you stated Robert KK's point still stands. The evidence provided by you actually totally discredits his point. It suggests homosexuality and paedophilia had nothing to do with abuse in the majority of cases.

Can you outline your logic on how that report backs up Robert KK's point.

Manach

Ironically that people have lost faith in the State when it comes to economic matters given the 2008 onwards great recession but are still willing to see the the redefining of marriage into that of companionship/domestic partnership.
This in the context of a Europe that has seen the institution of marriage decline to record lows under the same broad post-Christian progressive consensus that has been emerged since the 60s. This weakening has been welcomed and the concept of untraditional marriage been held as another nail in its coffin, by supporters and advocates as a means to debunk the myth of marriage and to alter its archaic nature and to cut the link between children and marriage.

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

Ironically that people have lost faith in the State when it comes to economic matters given the 2008 onwards great recession but are still willing to see the the redefining of marriage into that of companionship/domestic partnership.
This in the context of a Europe that has seen the institution of marriage decline to record lows under the same broad post-Christian progressive consensus that has been emerged since the 60s. This weakening has been welcomed and the concept of untraditional marriage been held as another nail in its coffin, by supporters and advocates as a means to debunk the myth of marriage and to alter its archaic nature and to cut the link between children and marriage.

....reads like you're arguing against yourself there.

_Redzer_

Manach wrote: »

Ironically that people have lost faith in the State when it comes to economic matters given the 2008 onwards great recession but are still willing to see the the redefining of marriage into that of companionship/domestic partnership.
This in the context of a Europe that has seen the institution of marriage decline to record lows under the same broad post-Christian progressive consensus that has been emerged since the 60s. This weakening has been welcomed and the concept of untraditional marriage been held as another nail in its coffin, by supporters and advocates as a means to debunk the myth of marriage and to alter its archaic nature and to cut the link between children and marriage.

All you lot do is spin in the same circle, huh?

There's no link between children and marriage because it's not a requirement. That's why infertile couples can marry.

Christian marriage is not traditional. The concept of love was irrelevant 100 years ago and it was on a suitor bases. That's only changed relatively recently.

If anything untraditional is going on here it's Christian marriage prohibiting same sex marriage which was common among many great civilisations from Ancient Greek, Roman and Aztec, etc.

But this has all been explained a million and one times to you before anyway, you just choose not to listen or take anything new in.

SoulandForm

K-9 wrote: »

The same report you cite as evidence that most priests weren't paedophiles also says homosexuality had little or no affect on abuse.

So you've a dilemna here, if you are saying paedophilia wasn't a factor in the majority of cases, the same report you rely on states homosexuality wasn't either.
.

Of course it does- in the world we live in how could it be otherwise?

The fact is that most of these men didnt abuse pre-pubsecent children but teenagers. They could have abused children in the modern definition but they rather prefered teenagers- suggesting that homosexuality was an actual problem no?

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

Of course it does- in the world we live in how could it be otherwise?

The fact is that most of these men didnt abuse pre-pubsecent children but teenagers. They could have abused children in the modern definition but they rather prefered teenagers- suggesting that homosexuality was an actual problem no?

Homosexuality is not the abuse of underage children. For the second time.

SoulandForm

Manach wrote: »

Ironically that people have lost faith in the State when it comes to economic matters given the 2008 onwards great recession but are still willing to see the the redefining of marriage into that of companionship/domestic partnership.
This in the context of a Europe that has seen the institution of marriage decline to record lows under the same broad post-Christian progressive consensus that has been emerged since the 60s. This weakening has been welcomed and the concept of untraditional marriage been held as another nail in its coffin, by supporters and advocates as a means to debunk the myth of marriage and to alter its archaic nature and to cut the link between children and marriage.

In a Socialist Ireland this debate would not even come up. While people are not excused (if someone goes to judgement "gay" now arguing that it was all others fault Im not sure will cut it) the fact is that we are influenced by economic and social factors we find ourselves surrounded by.

Links234

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

See, you are one of those people that I sincerely hope are saddened when we introduce equal rights for gays.

Actually, I hope you are sickened.

You know, I don't hope for any such thing for the bigots and homophobes out there, because really I don't think they're bad people at all. Homophobia like all bigotry and prejudice is learned, and I hope for nothing more than people to grow out of it, that when same sex couples are marrying and having families and the sky doesn't fall down, they see it doesn't effect them or impact their lives at all and go about their own lives.

I would feel sad for anyone who would entrench themselves in such bigotry, I would pity them, that is all.

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

Homosexuality is not the abuse of underage children. For the second time.

Does abuse of over age young adults count as homosexuality?

bumper234

SoulandForm wrote: »

Does abuse of over age young adults count as homosexuality?

Please define the abuse of over age young adults.

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

Does abuse of over age young adults count as homosexuality?

No, it counts as abuse.


Whats your thoughts on Gay marriage, btw? Are you against it? If so, why.

Corkfeen

SoulandForm wrote: »

Of course it does- in the world we live in how could it be otherwise?

The fact is that most of these men didnt abuse pre-pubsecent children but teenagers. They could have abused children in the modern definition but they rather prefered teenagers- suggesting that homosexuality was an actual problem no?

Nope,no it doesn't. Do you have any research to back up your claims because homosexuality relating to pedophilia or anything of the sort has been proven time and time again as homophobic urban myths.

Your very own link points to the fact it was a crime based on the most available victims being male. You're making conclusions that are entirely invalid because you wish for your prejudices to be confirmed.

K-9

SoulandForm wrote: »

Of course it does- in the world we live in how could it be otherwise?

The fact is that most of these men didnt abuse pre-pubsecent children but teenagers. They could have abused children in the modern definition but they rather prefered teenagers- suggesting that homosexuality was an actual problem no?

Look, I'm just looking at the Catholic Church report that you linked to, to provide proof that paedophilia wasn't an issue in the majority of cases. The very same report that you rely on as back up for the paedophilia point, suggests homosexuality wasn't either. So the report you linked suggest paedophilia and homesexuality had nothing to do with church sexual abuse case, in the majority of cases.

Mod:

If you want to rely on a link to prove your point, please don't selectively ignore points on the very same link that contradict your point. You've just provided a link that backs up one point, but totally contradicts the overall point made.

If you continue to rely on one part of a report to back up your view, but just brush aside other findings from the exact same report, we've a problem, that's soap boxing and will see you banned from the thread at the very least.

Manach

_Redzer_ wrote: »

All you lot do is spin in the same circle, huh?

There's no link between children and marriage because it's not a requirement. That's why infertile couples can marry.

Christian marriage is not traditional. The concept of love was irrelevant 100 years ago and it was on a suitor bases. That's only changed relatively recently.

If anything untraditional is going on here it's Christian marriage prohibiting same sex marriage which was common among many great civilisations from Ancient Greek, Roman and Aztec, etc.

But this has all been explained a million and one times to you before anyway, you just choose not to listen or take anything new in.

We have an tendancy to stick to the facts. One of the main initial proponents of the infertile couples and marriage idea was a Prof. Steven Macedo who made that point. Counter arguments have been made by Prof. John Finnis who pointed out that such are by their nature supportive of the institution of marriage and do not undermine it as the overall linkage remains. This is not supported by same-sex marriage.

From what I know of history as a classicist, as per your Civs mentioned, the Aztecs were known mainly for their heart surgery sans anaesthetic, the Greeks within some polii (eg Athens )had a socially regulated Teen/Man relationship but this did not extend to marriage which was strictly Man/Women - as for the Romans, I've only read of one instance. That was when an emperor tried to marry a man. The crowds jeered and laughed at him so much in the Collesum the prestige of his reign never
recovered. Wrong then, wrong now.

_Redzer_

Manach wrote: »

We have an tendancy to stick to the facts. One of the main initial proponents of the infertile couples and marriage idea was a Prof. Steven Macedo who made that point. Counter arguments have been made by Prof. John Finnis who pointed out that such are by their nature supportive of the institution of marriage and do not undermine it as the overall linkage remains. This is not supported by same-sex marriage.

From what I know of history as a classicist, as per your Civs mentioned, the Aztecs were known mainly for their heart surgery sans anaesthetic, the Greeks within some polii (eg Athens )had a socially regulated Teen/Man relationship but this did not extend to marriage which was strictly Man/Women - as for the Romans, I've only read of one instance. That was when an emperor tried to marry a man. The crowds jeered and laughed at him so much in the Collesum the prestige of his reign never
recovered. Wrong then, wrong now.

Wrong because a magical being with no proof of existence says so?

I fail to see what's wrong with two loving and consenting same sex couples of age marrying. There's nothing wrong with it and there never will be.

We could talk about biology and morals, but I'll win that because there's is nothing at all wrong with it. What mythology you were brainwashed with when you were a child dictates your stance on this and makes it irrational.

Corkfeen

Manach wrote: »

From what I know of history as a classicist, as per your Civs mentioned, the Aztecs were known mainly for their heart surgery sans anaesthetic, the Greeks within some polii (eg Athens )had a socially regulated Teen/Man relationship but this did not extend to marriage which was strictly Man/Women - as for the Romans, I've only read of one instance. That was when an emperor tried to marry a man. The crowds jeered and laughed at him so much in the Collesum the prestige of his reign never
recovered. Wrong then, wrong now.

Illustrate what it is wrong with about same sex couples marrying. We're referring to consensual couples marrying so most of the above is fairly inapplicable. Crowds jeering at an emperor marrying a man is more illustrative of the fact that people can be dicks than anything else.

You make fairly vague claims of it undermining society but society has not collapsed as a result of the numerous countries that have allowed same sex marriage. The very fact that your primary basis for not allowing same sex couples to marry because of a Christian moral ideal rather than actual facts is indicative of the fact that your reasoning should have no impact upon how the state operates in regards to civil marriages.

K-9

_Redzer_ wrote: »

The morons

Wrong because a magical being with no proof of existence says so?

All you lot do is spin in the same circle, huh?

Mod:

Tone it down please, I already gave a warning about posting respectfully and civilly, these posts don't cut it I'm afraid.

bumper234

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Tone it down please, I already gave a warning about posting respectfully and civilly, these posts don't cut it I'm afraid.

VERY emotive topic and I feel you have your work cut out for you:D personally I am going to unsubscribe from this thread as I know that I will end up getting a warning/ban if I continue to follow it. Good luck all and remember the things that matter most I life are not things!

duckman!!

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/causes-of-clerical-child-abuse-in-us-revealed-by-new-report-139706-May2011/

CATHOLIC PRIESTS WHO sexually molest children and teenagers are not driven by the pressures of celibacy or repressed homosexual desire, according to a new inquiry into clerical abuses in the US.
Instead, the report – commissioned by US bishops and other Catholic organisations – released today blames social changes, suggesting that abuse was driven by a general rise in “deviant” behaviour in the 1960s and 1970s. Increases in drug use, premarital sex and divorce throughout society influenced “vulnerable” priests who became abusers, the document’s authors write.

this report that was commissioned by US bishops and other Catholic organisations found drugs and premarital sex was the reason for priests abusing children???......... i have never read a bigger pile of s**t in my life, my grandmother once told me when ever a boy or young man back it the day showed any signs of being GAY they were sent straight into the priesthood(to pray away the gay) which tells me that there's probably a huge amount of priests out there today who are hiding there sexuality!! and who are the easiest targets for priests with homosexual urges.....children!
Typical Catholic church blaming everything and anything but themselves!!!!

RobertKK

Some here questioned how genuine I was being, I am being deadly seriously, in heterosexual abuse cases it is near always a man that abuses, yes I am being told I am not being genuine when I raise genuine concerns about men - whether heterosexual or homosexual - using SSM and the changes to adoption for the purpose of abuse.
I think anyone who thinks this will not happen are only wanting to see happy genuine couples married and maybe with children, but it is refusing to see how it also leaves a major loophole to be abused. No different to the respect and position in society that allowed men to join the priesthood with the intention of abuse. Oh a priest would never abuse anyone, you can't be saying that....

It is sad the government wants to open up a route for sexual abusers to abuse both minors and homosexuals themselves. It would not be the first time the state has been involved in child abuse, with courts sending minors to industrial schools, where the state had inspectors and failed to see the physical, sexual and mental abuse that went on.
Then people somehow think the state will somehow be able to spot an abuser before they are given access to the minor to abuse.
Gay marriage is going to backfire, given the rights it gives also makes it easy to be abused by evil people who don't care about minors or homosexuals, just their own sexual gratification.
It anyone thinks I am not being genuine, I ask you this, would you trust a child abuser?
If you do then my argument is not genuine.