The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[topcuppla]

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.

[muppet]

There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Unbelievable from a muppet who constantly plays the homophobic card, Jesus Wept!!

YOU are completely homophobic as has been demonstrated over and over. YOU constantly play the 'someone think of the children' card.

Amazingly YOU find this unbelievable. Maybe you should have a word with yourself.

[BennyCake]

The reason I ask whether it was a screw up is that if God created homosexuals then it wasn't a screw up and therefore as God's creations they ought to be accorded equal treatment to God's other human creations.  That's all.

But you go down a dangerous path with that presumption. Did God indeed then create killers, rapists..... the list goes on....?
The beautiful truth of the Catholic Church is there is always an AND

He loves us AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He loves ALL of us AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He hates sin AND there is no limit to His love and mercy. He created people who developed same sex attractions AND there is no limit to His love and mercy.
Some people are called to be married, some to religious life and just as important as both is the call to be single. Chaste and single.

I reckon the next referendum will be about whether we refer to God as 'him' or 'her'.

[omaghjoe]

Your brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.

I like this.

So are we just floating atoms and molecules?

[Hardy]

Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?

[The Iceman]

This place would get pretty damn boring without differing points of view to discuss.

I agree. When it doesn't descend into insults it's a great spot for discussion

[omaghjoe]

Your brain is for thinking. Your gut is for digestion. Your soul is for fiction writers.

I like this.

So are we just floating atoms and molecules?

Em, what's the word "so", doing in that sentence?

As a continuation and conclusion from having no soul.

[topcuppla]

There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Unbelievable from a muppet who constantly plays the homophobic card, Jesus Wept!!

YOU are completely homophobic as has been demonstrated over and over. YOU constantly play the 'someone think of the children' card.

Amazingly YOU find this unbelievable. Maybe you should have a word with yourself.

Yawn you are getting tiresome playing the homophobic card, as long as you sleep better putting gay rights ahead of the protection and welfare of young children that is entirely up to you.

[muppet]

There is no 'social experiment'. The issue of the 'protection of young children' is not relevant here either. Notice how it is now 'young' children. The word 'children' isn't enough anymore, now that the 'will someone think of the children' schtick has been completely overplayed, so you think by exaggerating the already ludicrously exaggerated point, that somehow it proves something. What it proves is the lack of substance to your argument.

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Unbelievable from a muppet who constantly plays the homophobic card, Jesus Wept!!

YOU are completely homophobic as has been demonstrated over and over. YOU constantly play the 'someone think of the children' card.

Amazingly YOU find this unbelievable. Maybe you should have a word with yourself.

Yawn you are getting tiresome playing the homophobic card, as long as you sleep better putting gay rights ahead of the protection and welfare of young children that is entirely up to you.

That is BOTH homophobic and playing the 'will someone think of the children' card.

I see no link between the two issues so I cannot be putting one ahead of the other.

[J70]

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.

The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.

[The Iceman]

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.

The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.

I don't think thats fair J70. This isn't about color of skin. And shouldn't be compared to that or any other nostalgic cause... I will teach my kids that some people have same sex attractions and these are not sinful but same sex acts are.
I will teach them to stand up for people and make sure they do not use words for hate or bigotry. Regardless of color or creed, gender or sexual orientation. They will have love and respect for everyone (hopefully).
There is nothing ignorant or f**k-wit about it

[omaghjoe]

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.

The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.

While I don't agree that its a reason to stop gay adoption, the reasoning that only the children of ignorant parents partake aint quite right either.

I used to give ginger and blonde kids crap at school, as well pretty much anyone that you could poke a hole in. Despite being taught to the contrary by my parents and fearing their wrath if they ever found out.

Kids will tease, slag and bully anyone and everything you aint gonna stop it, which is also incidentally the reason you can't use it as an argument to ban gay adoption.

[J70]

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.

The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.

While I don't agree that its a reason to stop gay adoption, the reasoning that only the children of ignorant parents aint quite right either.

I used to give ginger and blonde kids crap at school, as well pretty much anyone that you could poke a hole in. Despite being taught to the contrary by my parents and fearing their wrath if they ever found out.

Kids will tease, slag and bully anyone and everything you aint gonna stop it, which is also incidentally the reason you can't use it as an argument to ban gay adoption.

Fair point, but i understood Topcuppla to be talking about something above and beyond normal, background level childhood bullying. Basically kids who would be consistently singled out, like kids of a different race or background might have been back in the day.

[J70]

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.

The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.

I don't think thats fair J70. This isn't about color of skin. And shouldn't be compared to that or any other nostalgic cause... I will teach my kids that some people have same sex attractions and these are not sinful but same sex acts are.
I will teach them to stand up for people and make sure they do not use words for hate or bigotry. Regardless of color or creed, gender or sexual orientation. They will have love and respect for everyone (hopefully).
There is nothing ignorant or f**k-wit about it

If you teach your kids that homosexuals are to be feared and are "not like us" and that abusing their kids is ok, then you're an ignorant fuckwit.

Clearly you would not teach your kids that.

[omaghjoe]

Even linking being gay to child abuse puts you firmly in the homophobic category.

Child abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, but physiological abuse and social rejection are also abuse and that is what some poor child will suffer being raised by Barry and Paddy.

The only reason Barry and Paddy's kid would suffer psychological (presumably that is the word you were looking for?) abuse and social rejection is because ignorant fuckwits teach their kids that there is something wrong with and something to be feared with homosexuality. Just like with racists, some people will have to face down the ignoramuses for a while, but it will pass, along with the social acceptability of the prejudice.

While I don't agree that its a reason to stop gay adoption, the reasoning that only the children of ignorant parents aint quite right either.

I used to give ginger and blonde kids crap at school, as well pretty much anyone that you could poke a hole in. Despite being taught to the contrary by my parents and fearing their wrath if they ever found out.

Kids will tease, slag and bully anyone and everything you aint gonna stop it, which is also incidentally the reason you can't use it as an argument to ban gay adoption.

Fair point, but i understood Topcuppla to be talking about something above and beyond normal, background level childhood bullying. Basically kids who would be consistently singled out, like kids of a different race or background might have been back in the day.

Probably seems like Im stalking you a bit J70 and labouring points, sorry but I am agreeing with you (of sorts) this time.

Anyway Some kids used to get slagged for straight hair, curly hair, freckles, swarthy skin, I used to get slagged cos we were from a farm ffs, all things that somehow made us different and what we were born with through no fault of our own.
The slaggin could be quite brutal at times too, and had the potential to be as damaging to a child as slaggin around adult political sensitive stuff. Its all the same to kids.

But then that opens up a whole other can of worms if one kids gets grief about the colour of their hair and returns the compliment about the colour of other child's skin. Is one worse than the other because it is a politically sensitive issue?

Maybe not the thread for this but you see where I am going, basically what I am saying is we live in rainbow (sorry!) society with many different types of people, we can't make it mollycoddled politically correct world, our kids will soon make a mockery of it.