The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Oraisteach]

Marry their dogs, Tony?  Are you just trying to say the most outlandish thing possible to see how people react? You  are now aligning yourself with that American crackpot Ben Carson, who equates homosexuality with bestiality.  You do acknowledge a difference between an animal and a consenting adult, or don't you?  Are you secretly seeking to land a position teaching at Bob Jones University. You're in great shape if you are.  You are also doing a very good job of making the DUP seem like a moderate left-leaning outfit.  And you're undoubtedly making people with reservations about same-sex marriage plead, "For God's sake, Fearon, stay off our side."

[J70]

Well let's hear the non-homophobic or pro-gay argument against gay marriage.

[imtommygunn]

Fearon you share the same opinion as jamie bryson on this. (I saw his view years ago on twitter as he gladly has disappeared now). That is the kind of person you share rationale with so be proud of yourself

As per most debates you again illustrate a basic lack of understanding of key english words.

Look this one up...

Consent

[T Fearon]

If two people consent to kill a third person is that ok? I am not homophobic,and don't disrespect anyone.I object to gay marriage simply on religious and moral grounds, like many others I might add.I genuinely pity any child who is reared in such a relationship,as if it is "normal".It is not and never will be.What chance has a child brought up by two men,denied the unique love of a mother,for example?

[Gabriel_Hurl]

I pity you

[imtommygunn]

If two people consent to kill a third person is that ok? I am not homophobic,and don't disrespect anyone.I object to gay marriage simply on religious and moral grounds, like many others I might add.I genuinely pity any child who is reared in such a relationship,as if it is "normal".It is not and never will be.What chance has a child brought up by two men,denied the unique love of a mother,for example?

Hmm. Another spectacular comparison.

I think you should probably add the word homophobic to the list of words you don't understand.

[muppet]

If two people consent to kill a third person is that ok? I am not homophobic,and don't disrespect anyone.I object to gay marriage simply on religious and moral grounds, like many others I might add.I genuinely pity any child who is reared in such a relationship,as if it is "normal".It is not and never will be.What chance has a child brought up by two men,denied the unique love of a mother,for example?

Hmm. Another spectacular comparison.

I think you should probably add the word homophobic to the list of words you don't understand.

Two people 'consenting' to deny a third person their freedom is never ok.

Good comparison.

[T Fearon]

Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.

50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?

[thebuzz]

Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.

50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?

50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Tony you know the difference between a human being and a dog right?

[BennyCake]

Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.

50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?

50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.

That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.

[T Fearon]

Exactly.Society was a hell of a lot better 50 years ago,before wealth,greed and anything goes took over.Politicians were generally motivated by public service and conviction and not in the back pocket of corporates.People looked out for each other,and there was a definite sense and distinction between right and wrong, underpinned by a strong moral compass.

[thebuzz]

Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.

50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?

50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.

That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.

I don't have a high horse and I don't give a shit about those in power. I've always held the view 'Live and let live' and always will.

[Oraisteach]

Yes, Tony, bring back those glorious days of yesteryear, when gay simply meant happy, when Catholics had a cornucopia of civil rights, those halcyon days of unchecked clerical sexual abuse.  Gosh darn it, I surely miss them.

[BennyCake]

Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.

50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?

50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.

That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.

I don't have a high horse and I don't give a shit about those in power. I've always held the view 'Live and let live' and always will.

I couldn't give a shite what gays get up to in their own time. I just don't agree with same sex "marriage". It doesn't mean I'm anti-gay, nor anyone else who thinks likewise, but that's how it's portrayed.