PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage - Approved in Ireland?



TolkoRaz
23-05-2015, 19:39
It appears that Gay Marriage might have won a 'Yes' vote in Ireland!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32856232

I thought that the use of condoms and abortion was illegal / banned in Ireland?
So, the legalisation of Gay Marriage in such a staunchly Roman Catholic country seems very odd to me!

Oh Well, I suppose vossy7 will be rejoicing! ;)

vossy7
23-05-2015, 19:44
It appears that Gay Marriage might have won a 'Yes' vote in Ireland!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32856232

I thought that the use of condoms and abortion was illegal / banned in Ireland?
So, the legalisation of Gay Marriage in such a staunchly Roman Catholic country seems very odd to me!

Oh Well, I suppose vossy7 will be rejoicing! ;)

So Paddy and Mick ....two well known gays in Dublin's gay district ....are standing at a bar having their cocktails (no pun intended :) ) when a big guy walks past and lets a loud rasping fart ......Paddy says to Mick..... "virgin" :tongue:

Uncle Wally
23-05-2015, 23:28
It appears that Gay Marriage might have won a 'Yes' vote in Ireland!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32856232

I thought that the use of condoms and abortion was illegal / banned in Ireland?
So, the legalisation of Gay Marriage in such a staunchly Roman Catholic country seems very odd to me!

Oh Well, I suppose vossy7 will be rejoicing! ;)



Roman catholic priest are all secretly gay.

fenrir
24-05-2015, 00:30
Roman catholic priest are all secretly gay.

Proof! Where's your proof? I can say Russian Orthodox priests are all secretly gay too and just marry for public show, but then I would expect many people to ask me to back that up with conclusive evidence. It's put up or shut up time.

Uncle Wally
24-05-2015, 01:21
Proof! Where's your proof? I can say Russian Orthodox priests are all secretly gay too and just marry for public show, but then I would expect many people to ask me to back that up with conclusive evidence. It's put up or shut up time.



So shut up then! I have ten years experience with the catholic church.

Nobbynumbnuts
24-05-2015, 02:03
....I have ten years experience with the catholic church.

..you must be walking funny then.

rusmeister
24-05-2015, 02:45
http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/follow-the-money-american-entity-funded-irish-same-sex-marriage-campaign/#.VWEQ5IjXeK1

fenrir
24-05-2015, 09:27
So shut up then! I have ten years experience with the catholic church.

And you met every priest on the planet and confirmed their sexual orientations? Your personal 'ahem' encounters are not proof. Try harder.

Suuryaa
24-05-2015, 12:26
http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/follow-the-money-american-entity-funded-irish-same-sex-marriage-campaign/#.VWEQ5IjXeK1

I can't get it. Why would someone fund same-sex marriage? Do they want Ireland to be destroyed?

vossy7
24-05-2015, 12:58
This is more about the Irish people finally saying :bird: to the church which has ruled our country with an iron fist for too long :cussing:

FatAndy
24-05-2015, 13:01
the church which has ruled our country with an iron fist for too long :cussing:
Insha alla, bro...

TolkoRaz
24-05-2015, 13:27
This is more about the Irish people finally saying :bird: to the church which has ruled our country with an iron fist for too long :cussing:

Too much fisting going on in the Republic of Ireland! :eek:

Nobbynumbnuts
24-05-2015, 13:30
This is more about the Irish people finally saying :bird: to the church which has ruled our country with an iron fist for too long :cussing:

..exactly. Cannot imagine any 'external financing program' persuading the Irish to vote 'Yes' by a margin of 2 to 1. The reason is simple, the Irish are a tolerant nation..

penka
24-05-2015, 13:33
This is more about the Irish people finally saying :bird: to the church which has ruled our country with an iron fist for too long :cussing:

Who can blame them!

natlee
24-05-2015, 13:41
This is more about the Irish people finally saying :bird: to the church which has ruled our country with an iron fist for too long :cussing: Makes sense and good for you! :)

vossy7
24-05-2015, 16:32
Too much fisting going on in the Republic of Ireland! :eek:

TR can you explain what fisting is and remember this is a family forum :10518:

TolkoRaz
24-05-2015, 16:58
:neiner:

penka
24-05-2015, 17:41
TR can you explain what fisting is and remember this is a family forum :10518:

Vossya, I thought of you today:)

vossy7
24-05-2015, 18:23
Vossya, I thought of you today:)

Cheers Pen:10518::10518:

penka
24-05-2015, 18:29
Cheers Pen:10518::10518:

Cheers, mate!
Mum's BD today, so it started with the champagne brekky and we took it from there:D

vossy7
24-05-2015, 19:04
Cheers, mate!
Mum's BD today, so it started with the champagne brekky and we took it from there:D

Now that warms the cockles of my heart.....my ma was not a drinker at all but I introduced her to a drop of Baileys in her rare coffee later in life and she loved it God bless her, cheers to your mum :10518::10518::10518:

penka
24-05-2015, 19:34
Now that warms the cockles of my heart.....my ma was not a drinker at all but I introduced her to a drop of Baileys in her rare coffee later in life and she loved it God bless her, cheers to your mum :10518::10518::10518:

Thanks!:)

Uncle Wally
24-05-2015, 23:26
Thanks!:)



I'll drink to that!

TolkoRaz
24-05-2015, 23:34
I'll drink to that!

You would drink to anything! :jester:

Uncle Wally
25-05-2015, 05:06
You would drink to anything! :jester:


Not to the US of A.

Uncle Wally
25-05-2015, 05:06
Not to the US of A.

But all most anything else.

rusmeister
25-05-2015, 06:35
This is more about the Irish people finally saying :bird: to the church which has ruled our country with an iron fist for too long :cussing:

I'm curious: do you think the suppression of pedophilia to be "ruling with an iron fist"? Why or why not?
Are there any things people desire to do that are bad for society? What should the limits to freedom be? What is the result of unlimited freedom?

Suuryaa
25-05-2015, 09:19
This is more about the Irish people finally saying :bird: to the church which has ruled our country with an iron fist for too long :cussing:

And I understand them!

TolkoRaz
25-05-2015, 09:23
And I understand them!

Do you speak Gaelic? ;)

rusmeister
25-05-2015, 12:44
I can't get it. Why would someone fund same-sex marriage? Do they want Ireland to be destroyed?


..exactly. Cannot imagine any 'external financing program' persuading the Irish to vote 'Yes' by a margin of 2 to 1. The reason is simple, the Irish are a tolerant nation..

There are the key words: "Cannot imagine".

Why would anyone fund "Arab Springs"? Does any wealthy power, individual or national, ever try to influence events in another country?

To Suuryaa: they want their own vision of morality imposed, which is a lack thereof. If it was truly a thing the people wanted, no money would be necessary. It is precisely to override the traditions of the common man that money is spent to manipulate modern processes of law.

Nobbynumbnuts
25-05-2015, 13:05
There are the key words: "Cannot imagine".

Why would anyone fund "Arab Springs"? Does any wealthy power, individual or national, ever try to influence events in another country?...

So are you imagining that without that funding the 'Yes' vote would have lost?

One thing, politicians are not stupid. The Irish government would not have proposed the vote if they weren't fairly confident of the result.
The 'yes' vote won by a 2-1 majority and confirms the Irish are a tolerant people. Great advertisement for the country.

vossy7
25-05-2015, 13:17
So are you imagining that without that funding the 'Yes' vote would have lost?

One thing, politicians are not stupid. The Irish government would not have proposed the vote if they weren't fairly confident of the result.
The 'yes' vote won by a 2-1 majority and confirms the Irish are a tolerant people. Great advertisement for the country.

:thumbsup:

Suuryaa
25-05-2015, 16:56
Do you speak Gaelic? ;)

Not in this life, unfortunately...

vossy7
25-05-2015, 20:38
Not in this life, unfortunately...

Yeah you have to get to heaven to speak the heavy stuff :respect:

TolkoRaz
25-05-2015, 22:11
Yeah you have to get to heaven to speak the heavy stuff :respect:

I thought that the feeling of being in heaven was when drinking the heavy black stuff?

rusmeister
25-05-2015, 22:14
So are you imagining that without that funding the 'Yes' vote would have lost?

One thing, politicians are not stupid. The Irish government would not have proposed the vote if they weren't fairly confident of the result.
The 'yes' vote won by a 2-1 majority and confirms the Irish are a tolerant people. Great advertisement for the country.

The vote would never have even been brought to the table without that funding. What 0.05% of the general population wants doesn't become a national issue, period, unless huge money makes it so.

Nobby, you don't even want to consider that toleration of things can be bad as well as good. I have said time and again, and you have always been silent in response, that we do not tolerate poisonous mushrooms in our soup, or praise tolerance of cancerous cells in the body.

It IS proof that the government, like all modern governments, are divorced from the peoples they rule. My assessment is that what the vote on a measure that would never have seen the light of day without LOTS of money means is a vote against the perception of the Catholic Church formed as much by the media as by evil actions of individuals in that Church, not a desire to see men kissing men everywhere and pretending that they can constitute families.

Uncle Wally
25-05-2015, 22:40
I thought that the feeling of being in heaven was when drinking the heavy black stuff?



Pink lips!

Nobbynumbnuts
25-05-2015, 23:42
The vote would never have even been brought to the table without that funding. What 0.05% of the general population wants doesn't become a national issue, period, unless huge money makes it so.

Nobby, you don't even want to consider that toleration of things can be bad as well as good. I have said time and again, and you have always been silent in response, that we do not tolerate poisonous mushrooms in our soup, or praise tolerance of cancerous cells in the body.

It IS proof that the government, like all modern governments, are divorced from the peoples they rule. My assessment is that what the vote on a measure that would never have seen the light of day without LOTS of money means is a vote against the perception of the Catholic Church formed as much by the media as by evil actions of individuals in that Church, not a desire to see men kissing men everywhere and pretending that they can constitute families.

The churches views on same sex marriage were rejected by the Irish people.
The church (and you) rather than having a period of self examination and reflecting on how they can reengage and connect with the people resort to ill tempered, sour grapes. Blaming the loss on some perceived evil and the election having being rigged or bought.

Get over it. Your views were rejected..

rusmeister
26-05-2015, 03:16
The churches views on same sex marriage were rejected by the Irish people.
The church (and you) rather than having a period of self examination and reflecting on how they can reengage and connect with the people resort to ill tempered, sour grapes. Blaming the loss on some perceived evil and the election having being rigged or bought.

Get over it. Your views were rejected..
So, rather than even consider my idea, you will just assert your view. That certainly cannot be called open-minded.
You don't respond to the point on tolerance, either. That's ignoring a proven and provable point. It would be more dignified to admit I am right on that than to ignore it. You would at least show that you are listening and think about words.

Comment j'ai dit.

nicklcool
26-05-2015, 21:21
The 'yes' vote won by a 2-1 majority and confirms the Irish are a tolerant people. Great advertisement for the country.

Isn't it interesting that the true (scientific) definition of tolerance is a negative one? As in, a heroin addict whose body develops a tolerance to the drug and thereby can withstand more and more of its negative effects.

Nobby, this newfound tolerance is actually an awful advertisement for the country. Heaven forbid if it leads Ireland down the road that celebrating " diversity" brought us saps in the USA and the West!

Isn't it interesting that the Liberal West hated Putin well before his military strength increased...they hate that he supports traditional families, marriage, lifestyles, etc., not so much the takeovers in Georgia and Ukraine, and the increased bomber flights....the Liberal West is quite intolerant if this is the view you hold!! :ignore:

Nobbynumbnuts
26-05-2015, 21:44
Isn't it interesting that the true (scientific) definition of tolerance is a negative one? As in, a heroin addict whose body develops a tolerance to the drug and thereby can withstand more and more of its negative effects.

Nobby, this newfound tolerance is actually an awful advertisement for the country. Heaven forbid if it leads Ireland down the road that celebrating " diversity" brought us saps in the USA and the West!

Isn't it interesting that the Liberal West hated Putin well before his military strength increased...they hate that he supports traditional families, marriage, lifestyles, etc., not so much the takeovers in Georgia and Ukraine, and the increased bomber flights....the Liberal West is quite intolerant if this is the view you hold!! :ignore:

..you can twist words around to your hearts content. Makes no difference, the Irish have proved themselves to be a tolerant society. Accept it and get over it! ;)

vossy7
26-05-2015, 21:53
Isn't it interesting that the true (scientific) definition of tolerance is a negative one? As in, a heroin addict whose body develops a tolerance to the drug and thereby can withstand more and more of its negative effects.

Nobby, this newfound tolerance is actually an awful advertisement for the country. Heaven forbid if it leads Ireland down the road that celebrating " diversity" brought us saps in the USA and the West!

Isn't it interesting that the Liberal West hated Putin well before his military strength increased...they hate that he supports traditional families, marriage, lifestyles, etc., not so much the takeovers in Georgia and Ukraine, and the increased bomber flights....the Liberal West is quite intolerant if this is the view you hold!! :ignore:

Nick, couple of very simple questions .........1/ Are you Irish ?
2/ if not have you ever lived in Ireland for a long period of time?

nicklcool
26-05-2015, 22:27
..you can twist words around to your hearts content. Makes no difference, the Irish have proved themselves to be a tolerant society. Accept it and get over it! ;)
No twisted words; you are celebrating tolerance and I am warning that tolerance in an of itself is not a fantastic aim. The Irish have proven themselves tolerant of what? Legalizing relationships that confuse children and have no chance of allowing for procreation? Ones that without the child-rearing & family aspect of traditional (man-woman) marriages may be based on sexual pleasure alone and may in fact lead to dissolution of the social fabric? Isn't Ireland also suffering from a demographics crisis - how will this new "tolerance" correct that trend? You see Nobby I'm not arguing with you whether the Irish voted for "tolerance" - I'm debating whether this tolerance that you and much of the West seeks is a good thing for society's survival :11513:

nicklcool
26-05-2015, 22:34
Nick, couple of very simple questions .........1/ Are you Irish ?
2/ if not have you ever lived in Ireland for a long period of time?

Good questions vossy, I like simple ones because they make my head hurt less :farout:

1. I am American, but in that Balkanized way that the Feds like to categorize us these days, I'm 1/4 Irish when you look at my ancestors.
2. I've never ever lived in Ireland but given that it's part of the West, as is America, my hypothesis on how Nobby's celebrated Irish tolerance will affect the country should be quite accurate.

I like the numbering system too, it helps me follow along :mooooh:

I take it you're Irish or have spent significant time there? What was this debate like in your country? What points did the citizens make for/against? Do the Irish also vastly overestimate the LGBT population in their country, as it was recently pointed out to occur in America?

TolkoRaz
26-05-2015, 22:43
Interestingly, I now read that in the North of the island (Ulster, UK) they want to seek legalisation of gay marriage! On the same day, the First Minister for Northern Ireland was admitted to hospital with a heart attack!

Coincidence or conspiracy? ;) Uncle Wally, care to answer that?

Uncle Wally
26-05-2015, 22:51
Interestingly, I now read that in the North of the island (Ulster, UK) they want to seek legalisation of gay marriage! On the same day, the First Minister for Northern Ireland was admitted to hospital with a heart attack!

Coincidence or conspiracy? ;) Uncle Wally, care to answer that?



He was probably so worried that his boyfriend would want him to leave his wife and marry him his old heart couldn't take it.

TolkoRaz
26-05-2015, 23:05
If I am remember correctly, I think it is the same man who's wife had an affair with a man about 30 years her junior! :whisper:

nicklcool
26-05-2015, 23:08
If I am remember correctly, I think it is the same man who's wife had an affair with a man about 30 years her junior! :whisper:

M'eh the whole promiscuous sex thing gets old when you realize orgasms only feel good out of biological necessity...if sex did not feel good we would not procreate and the human species would cease to exist! :coffee:

Nobbynumbnuts
26-05-2015, 23:24
No twisted words; you are celebrating tolerance and I am warning that tolerance in an of itself is not a fantastic aim. The Irish have proven themselves tolerant of what? Legalizing relationships that confuse children and have no chance of allowing for procreation? Ones that without the child-rearing & family aspect of traditional (man-woman) marriages may be based on sexual pleasure alone and may in fact lead to dissolution of the social fabric? Isn't Ireland also suffering from a demographics crisis - how will this new "tolerance" correct that trend? You see Nobby I'm not arguing with you whether the Irish voted for "tolerance" - I'm debating whether this tolerance that you and much of the West seeks is a good thing for society's survival :11513:

You see nicklcool........why are you so frightened that a few gays or lesbians might want the same rights in a relationship as anyone else? As any phycologist will tell you, discrimination is based in fear.
So a few gays and lesbians wanting to get married will mean the end of society as we know it? :D

nicklcool
26-05-2015, 23:57
You see nicklcool........why are you so frightened that a few gays or lesbians might want the same rights in a relationship as anyone else? As any phycologist will tell you, discrimination is based in fear.

Fair points, the fear here is for the children and society in general...the very point used by gay marriage advocates is that they wanted some legitimacy granted to their relationships...


So a few gays and lesbians wanting to get married will mean the end of society as we know it? :D

...and once the legitimacy is granted by government through legalized gay marriage, then it will no longer be "a few gays and lesbians." This, it seems, is not in the general interest of society.

As for "the end of society as we know it" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY
how do you propose birth rates will stabilize once gay marriage becomes normalized in our societies? (many of the societies except for Russia, at least)

Economists know all about the unintended motivating factors caused by subsidies, and they apply to government policies in general, too. We have to be careful of the unintended consequences of the tolerant legalized gay marriage movements!

Uncle Wally
27-05-2015, 00:12
You see nicklcool........why are you so frightened that a few gays or lesbians might want the same rights in a relationship as anyone else? As any phycologist will tell you, discrimination is based in fear.
So a few gays and lesbians wanting to get married will mean the end of society as we know it? :D



For me it's based in taking benefits away from real families that will have children.

Nobbynumbnuts
27-05-2015, 00:25
Fair points, the fear here is for the children and society in general...the very point used by gay marriage advocates is that they wanted some legitimacy granted to their relationships...


...and once the legitimacy is granted by government through legalized gay marriage, then it will no longer be "a few gays and lesbians." This, it seems, is not in the general interest of society.

As for "the end of society as we know it" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY
how do you propose birth rates will stabilize once gay marriage becomes normalized in our societies? (many of the societies except for Russia, at least)

Economists know all about the unintended motivating factors caused by subsidies, and they apply to government policies in general, too. We have to be careful of the unintended consequences of the tolerant legalized gay marriage movements!

Why is it not in the interest of society that gays can enjoy the same rights as any one else? Are they not a part of society? What about all those who believe in equality and inclusion in the communities they live, are they not a part of society? Doesn't everyone have the right to shape the communities they live in?

What's the fear for children? A couple of gays move in next door and our sons and daughters become raving homosexuals? Absolutely no evidence of this at all.

Gays cannot procreate. How is not allowing them to marry going to change that? Any problem with the birth rate cannot be blamed on gays.

So when gays are allowed to marry, lots of people who aren't gay will enter into homosexual relationships and apply to marry as gays???

Gays have been around for millions of years, since the first humans, traditional marriage as you call it is a new phenomenon. All 6 billion of us are still here.

Just leave them alone, live and let live. Plenty of more important things to worry about than who people wish to spend their lives with...

rusmeister
27-05-2015, 07:52
Nick, couple of very simple questions .........1/ Are you Irish ?
2/ if not have you ever lived in Ireland for a long period of time?

And how do a couple of "no"s make what he said irrelevant? Does it mean that Irish people can't respond to thought that actually thinks, and if we had lived there, we would understand this?

rusmeister
27-05-2015, 07:53
No twisted words; you are celebrating tolerance and I am warning that tolerance in an of itself is not a fantastic aim. The Irish have proven themselves tolerant of what? Legalizing relationships that confuse children and have no chance of allowing for procreation? Ones that without the child-rearing & family aspect of traditional (man-woman) marriages may be based on sexual pleasure alone and may in fact lead to dissolution of the social fabric? Isn't Ireland also suffering from a demographics crisis - how will this new "tolerance" correct that trend? You see Nobby I'm not arguing with you whether the Irish voted for "tolerance" - I'm debating whether this tolerance that you and much of the West seeks is a good thing for society's survival :11513:

Nobby doesn't seem interested in taking ideas that disagree with his and thinking about them; only in repeating his own talking points.

rusmeister
27-05-2015, 07:58
You see nicklcool........why are you so frightened that a few gays or lesbians might want the same rights in a relationship as anyone else? As any phycologist will tell you, discrimination is based in fear.
So a few gays and lesbians wanting to get married will mean the end of society as we know it? :D

See what I mean? Nobby, you don't address the question of procreation that nickl has raised; you immediately twist it yourself into "fear". You're not interested in debate; only in silencing it.

But if I'm wrong; if you are genuinely interested, and open to considering things, something you haven't done yet, maybe I'll answer your question here.

Nobbynumbnuts
27-05-2015, 10:05
See what I mean? Nobby, you don't address the question of procreation that nickl has raised; you immediately twist it yourself into "fear". You're not interested in debate; only in silencing it.

But if I'm wrong; if you are genuinely interested, and open to considering things, something you haven't done yet, maybe I'll answer your question here.


Read my post above re procreation. And nicklcool said already my point about 'fear' was a fair one........discrimination is based in fear.

nicklcool
27-05-2015, 16:22
Why is it not in the interest of society that gays can enjoy the same rights as any one else?

What's the fear for children? A couple of gays move in next door and our sons and daughters become raving homosexuals? Absolutely no evidence of this at all.

Gays cannot procreate. How is not allowing them to marry going to change that? Any problem with the birth rate cannot be blamed on gays.

So when gays are allowed to marry, lots of people who aren't gay will enter into homosexual relationships and apply to marry as gays???

Gays have been around for millions of years, since the first humans, traditional marriage as you call it is a new phenomenon. All 6 billion of us are still here.

Just leave them alone, live and let live. Plenty of more important things to worry about than who people wish to spend their lives with...

You've totally missed every single rhetorical point - congratulations!:fireworks:

The "sons & daughters" don't become homosexuals overnight - of course that's absurd - great strawman :yellowcard:

It happens over decades, generations, once the behavior has become normalized and accepted by society. Think about how sex outside marriage was so taboo in the early 20th century in the US, and now - not instantly but after a few generations - promiscuous and outside of mariage sex is normal. In fact, now you are considered by society to be abnormal if you wait to have sex! In this way, nobby, perhaps by the late 21st century, if homosexuality becomes quite normalized, the proportion of LGBT in the community grows from < 5% to who knows how high...there's your "sons and daughters becoming homosexuals" -- change "sons and daughters" to "great great grandsons and granddaughters," and your strawman argument becomes the potential reality!

For procreation, yes, gays have not caused today's problems in the West. Most likely this has been caused by the sexual revolution, radical feminism, etc. - again, not overnight nobbynumbnuts, but over generations. Women pursuing careers instead of/before raising children, aborton became socially acceptable, promiscuous sex became acceptable, and what did we expect the result to be?? Similarly, nobby, my analysis/hypothesis is that if homosexuality becomes normalized, maybe higher proportions of people in future generations will partake in it, and since a male drill bit + male drill bit do not a baby make, yes, in the future BRIC countries will have many many many babies while all the West will have is sexually active safe sex practicing heteros with few children and homosexuals with no children as well.

One last thing, no one is worried about whom homosexuals spend their time with - they are welcome to be left alone in their relationships - but the very point being debated right now in the SCOTUS is whether marriage is a civil right. IMHO the Liberal Democrats have so watered down the definition of civil rights that now everything is a civil right and of course by this logic nothing is a civil right!


Read my post above re procreation. And nicklcool said already my point about 'fear' was a fair one........discrimination is based in fear.

"fear" here is understood by me, in that Conservatives in the US are used to being called "racist," "xenophobe," "homophobe," "fearful," etc. etc. etc. as a way of being shouted down and closing off the debate. Already, by bringing up fear and discrimination, nobby, you're weakening your rhetorical points and appear to have no way of explaining the benefit to society of allowing homosexual marriage. :doh:

rusmeister
27-05-2015, 17:14
Read my post above re procreation. And nicklcool said already my point about 'fear' was a fair one........discrimination is based in fear.

I did read it, Nobby. The difference between us is that I pay close attention to what you say.

Your point about fear is NOT fair; I don't grant that. If you fear a state ruled by Christian morality, can I call you a Christianophobe? You don't distinguish between reasonable fear and genuine phobia; the former being based on reasonable concerns, which all of us have about something and the having of which does not constitute a phobia, which is a mad and unreasoning fear. You don't ask, and I get an impression you don't want to know what our reasons are. You assume we don't have any.

I know your reasons, which can be summed up by saying you do not see what is wrong with this. Well, we do. And to date you haven't shown the slightest genuine curiosity of how we see that.

Nobbynumbnuts
27-05-2015, 18:46
You've totally missed every single rhetorical point - congratulations!:fireworks:

The "sons & daughters" don't become homosexuals overnight - of course that's absurd - great strawman :yellowcard:

It happens over decades, generations, once the behavior has become normalized and accepted by society. Think about how sex outside marriage was so taboo in the early 20th century in the US, and now - not instantly but after a few generations - promiscuous and outside of mariage sex is normal. In fact, now you are considered by society to be abnormal if you wait to have sex! In this way, nobby, perhaps by the late 21st century, if homosexuality becomes quite normalized, the proportion of LGBT in the community grows from < 5% to who knows how high...there's your "sons and daughters becoming homosexuals" -- change "sons and daughters" to "great great grandsons and granddaughters," and your strawman argument becomes the potential reality!

For procreation, yes, gays have not caused today's problems in the West. Most likely this has been caused by the sexual revolution, radical feminism, etc. - again, not overnight nobbynumbnuts, but over generations. Women pursuing careers instead of/before raising children, aborton became socially acceptable, promiscuous sex became acceptable, and what did we expect the result to be?? Similarly, nobby, my analysis/hypothesis is that if homosexuality becomes normalized, maybe higher proportions of people in future generations will partake in it, and since a male drill bit + male drill bit do not a baby make, yes, in the future BRIC countries will have many many many babies while all the West will have is sexually active safe sex practicing heteros with few children and homosexuals with no children as well.

One last thing, no one is worried about whom homosexuals spend their time with - they are welcome to be left alone in their relationships - but the very point being debated right now in the SCOTUS is whether marriage is a civil right. IMHO the Liberal Democrats have so watered down the definition of civil rights that now everything is a civil right and of course by this logic nothing is a civil right!



"fear" here is understood by me, in that Conservatives in the US are used to being called "racist," "xenophobe," "homophobe," "fearful," etc. etc. etc. as a way of being shouted down and closing off the debate. Already, by bringing up fear and discrimination, nobby, you're weakening your rhetorical points and appear to have no way of explaining the benefit to society of allowing homosexual marriage. :doh:


So by allowing gays to marry, our descendants by the end of the century will become raving homosexuals. Perhaps being straight will simply go out of fashion? You couldn't make this stuff up, like something from a Monte Python sketch! :D

:fireworks:

The benefits are an inclusive society, one where everyone feels equal and a part. Everyone can achieve personal happiness. That's why 1.2 million (70%) of the Irish population voted for it. :doh:

nicklcool
27-05-2015, 19:46
So by allowing gays to marry, our descendants by the end of the century will become raving homosexuals. Perhaps being straight will simply go out of fashion? :D
:fireworks:
The benefits are an inclusive society, one where everyone feels equal and a part. Everyone can achieve personal happiness. :doh:

Well Nobby, what do you propose are the consequences of changing public policy? Does it affect behavior in any way? I mean was it just coincidental that after abortions became legal and sexual contraceptives affordable and covered by insurance and government programs, that abortion rates and sexual promiscuity increased?

When government changes laws and policies, that affects the society's behavior - this is the concern!
How about the numerous studies that unemployment lasts longer for an individual, than it would if unemployment benefits were cut off sooner? That in some way the twisted US welfare policies led to more single poor mothers in the ghettos etc. etc.

Your last part is just too much -- who is denying homosexuals personal happiness and inclusivity?? This sounds an awful lot like the US African-American community, which is incessantly blaming the system and others for their plight instead of looking inward, to the lack of two-parent stable families, among other things.

penka
27-05-2015, 19:50
So by allowing gays to marry, our descendants by the end of the century will become raving homosexuals. Perhaps being straight will simply go out of fashion? You couldn't make this stuff up, like something from a Monte Python sketch! :D

:fireworks:

The benefits are an inclusive society, one where everyone feels equal and a part. Everyone can achieve personal happiness. That's why 1.2 million (70%) of the Irish population voted for it. :doh:

You don't know the saying of the Russian serfs?: God was suffering, so should we. Maybe, that is a definition of personal happiness? Ask rus, he's an expert:)

nicklcool
27-05-2015, 20:06
When government changes laws and policies, that affects the society's behavior - this is the concern!

Gotta add to the list, once the US allowed the "civil right" of no-fault divorce in the country, what happened to the divorce rate in the US?? Pure coincidence, of course :10189:

Nobbynumbnuts
27-05-2015, 20:31
Well Nobby, what do you propose are the consequences of changing public policy? Does it affect behavior in any way? I mean was it just coincidental that after abortions became legal and sexual contraceptives affordable and covered by insurance and government programs, that abortion rates and sexual promiscuity increased?

When government changes laws and policies, that affects the society's behavior - this is the concern!
How about the numerous studies that unemployment lasts longer for an individual, than it would if unemployment benefits were cut off sooner? That in some way the twisted US welfare policies led to more single poor mothers in the ghettos etc. etc.

Your last part is just too much -- who is denying homosexuals personal happiness and inclusivity?? This sounds an awful lot like the US African-American community, which is incessantly blaming the system and others for their plight instead of looking inward, to the lack of two-parent stable families, among other things.

..who writes your script? :D

nicklcool
27-05-2015, 21:20
..who writes your script? :D


Kurt Vonnegut describes best why you're so amazed by my script...why do you ask?? :10600:

penka
27-05-2015, 22:23
Kurt Vonnegut describes best why you're so amazed by my script...why do you ask?? :10600:

Because you are writing "utterances" so primitive, it is humiliating for an intelligent creature to read them.

I keep asking myself: Is it trolling? Stupid joke? Some sect thing, unknown to me? I am lost! Critical approach, objectivity, broad mindnesness humanity fought for and took pride in, in the case you did not know. Pass it on to the member rusmeister, who believes he is an Orthodox Christian.

Nobbynumbnuts
27-05-2015, 23:32
Because you are writing "utterances" so primitive, it is humiliating for an intelligent creature to read them.

I keep asking myself: Is it trolling? Stupid joke? Some sect thing, unknown to me? I am lost! Critical approach, objectivity, broad mindnesness humanity fought for and took pride in, in the case you did not know. Pass it on to the member rusmeister, who believes he is an Orthodox Christian.


Yes penka, difficult to take that nonsense seriously.

Allowing gays to marry will lead to our great grand children becoming homosexuals. Classic! :D

rusmeister
28-05-2015, 00:09
Yes penka, difficult to take that nonsense seriously.

Allowing gays to marry will lead to our great grand children becoming homosexuals. Classic! :D

http://expat.ru/forum/showpost.php?p=1103679&postcount=78

This is the explanation of how that is actually so that no one has ever been able to respond to except by heckling or ignoring. Actually thinking about, not predictions of the future but historical fact of the recent past is too difficult or uncomfortable, I think. Penka sure didn't respond to it last time I posted it.

penka
28-05-2015, 19:19
Yes penka, difficult to take that nonsense seriously.

Allowing gays to marry will lead to our great grand children becoming homosexuals. Classic! :D

Indeed:D

penka
28-05-2015, 19:20
http://expat.ru/forum/showpost.php?p=1103679&postcount=78

This is the explanation of how that is actually, so that no one has ever been able to respond to except by heckling or ignoring. Actually thinking about, not predictions of the future but historical fact of the recent past is too difficult or uncomfortable, I think. Penka sure didn't respond to it last time I posted it.

You should try holding somebody at a gunpoint next time, rus:D Cornering me into your point of view won't help.

PS To rus and nick.

I find some opinions of your appalling. You, guys, see no difference between the form and content? Saying grace in public, staying in a bad and loveless marriage and being a good churchgoer means a good Christian and a decent person? Really? It's all about the onlookers, who will witness and testify your goodness, not about being good and truthful. It's called hypocrisy. Indeed, your intent and utterances might sound good, but without the appropriate content they make the worse kind of evil.

PPS Indeed, i do consider the good intended idiocy far more malevolent that the plain evil, as it poisons the mind.

Uncle Wally
29-05-2015, 11:20
You should try holding somebody at a gunpoint next time, rus:D Cornering me into your point of view won't help.

PS To rus and nick.

I find some opinions of your appalling. You, guys, see no difference between the form and content? Saying grace in public, staying in a bad and loveless marriage and being a good churchgoer means a good Christian and a decent person? Really? It's all about the onlookers, who will witness and testify your goodness, not about being good and truthful. It's called hypocrisy. Indeed, your intent and utterances might sound good, but without the appropriate content they make the worse kind of evil.

PPS Indeed, i do consider the good intended idiocy far more malevolent that the plain evil, as it poisons the mind.




Sounds so repressive the way you put it.

rusmeister
29-05-2015, 15:13
I don't think you understand the word "hypocrisy" at all, Penka. It is from Greek, and even in English means to pretend to be one thing while actually being something else.
Indeed, the hypocrite is the one who pretends to one form, while having an entirely different content.

Now the Christian admits that he is bad, he is a sinner, that we all (including him) have a broken relationship with God. He may continue to fall into sin, though he is supposed to try not to. That he tells you (as well as himself) that we ought to at least want to be good does not make him a hypocrite, even if he fails at times. If he is sincere and not a hypocrite, he will confess his wrongdoing, learn to hate te wrongdoing, and try not to do it again. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when the very intent is absent, when he pretends to repent, but has every intention of doing it again. So the hypocrisy card can only work against someone who does not believe what he preaches, who treats it as not true.

And you do not treat anything I say fairly. I never said that saying grace in public and so on makes one a good Christian, though a good Christian may do those things. But if one is in a loveless marriage, I say the cure is not to kill the marriage, any more than killing a person as a way to deal with cancer does, but to, in the most literal sense, make love; that is, to produce love. And love is produced, not by feeling things, but by doing them. And the doing may be very difficult, as a serious struggle against cancer is difficult. But it is better to struggle than to simply commit suicide. Death is not a cure for life, and divorce is not a cure for marriage.

It is not a matter of my "cornering you into my point of view", but of getting you to admit the truth. The only way to prove me wrong is to disprove what I said in that post, a thing you cannot do. Therefore, it is not "my point of view", but the truth. It is the truth that social tolerance of easy divorce broke the idea of marriage as a sacred thing, making it a thing that could be broken by a mere act of will. It is the truth that social tolerance of adultery and fornication, logically following from that first great break, led to the general breakdown of the family and modern horde of single mothers and irresponsible and fugitive fathers, of whom my sister and erstwhile BIL, with six children as the innocent victims are among them.

The main way to point out, to others, if you will not admit it yourself, is that you can make assertions about what constitutes poison, but you cannot respond intelligently and thoughtfully to my post. At any rate, you have not done so, as a fact, and I don't expect you to. (I have no objections to being surprised, though; intelligent, considerate objection is a much rarer thing than mere assertion.

penka
29-05-2015, 16:47
I don't think you understand the word "hypocrisy" at all, Penka. It is from Greek, and even in English means to pretend to be one thing while actually being something else.
Indeed, the hypocrite is the one who pretends to one form, while having an entirely different content.

Now the Christian admits that he is bad, he is a sinner, that we all (including him) have a broken relationship with God. He may continue to fall into sin, though he is supposed to try not to. That he tells you (as well as himself) that we ought to at least want to be good does not make him a hypocrite, even if he fails at times. If he is sincere and not a hypocrite, he will confess his wrongdoing, learn to hate te wrongdoing, and try not to do it again. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when the very intent is absent, when he pretends to repent, but has every intention of doing it again. So the hypocrisy card can only work against someone who does not believe what he preaches, who treats it as not true.

And you do not treat anything I say fairly. I never said that saying grace in public and so on makes one a good Christian, though a good Christian may do those things. But if one is in a loveless marriage, I say the cure is not to kill the marriage, any more than killing a person as a way to deal with cancer does, but to, in the most literal sense, make love; that is, to produce love. And love is produced, not by feeling things, but by doing them. And the doing may be very difficult, as a serious struggle against cancer is difficult. But it is better to struggle than to simply commit suicide. Death is not a cure for life, and divorce is not a cure for marriage.

It is not a matter of my "cornering you into my point of view", but of getting you to admit the truth. The only way to prove me wrong is to disprove what I said in that post, a thing you cannot do. Therefore, it is not "my point of view", but the truth. It is the truth that social tolerance of easy divorce broke the idea of marriage as a sacred thing, making it a thing that could be broken by a mere act of will. It is the truth that social tolerance of adultery and fornication, logically following from that first great break, led to the general breakdown of the family and modern horde of single mothers and irresponsible and fugitive fathers, of whom my sister and erstwhile BIL, with six children as the innocent victims are among them.

The main way to point out, to others, if you will not admit it yourself, is that you can make assertions about what constitutes poison, but you cannot respond intelligently and thoughtfully to my post. At any rate, you have not done so, as a fact, and I don't expect you to. (I have no objections to being surprised, though; intelligent, considerate objection is a much rarer thing than mere assertion.

"Admit" seems to be an operative word, when you're addressing me, rus:D

vossy7
29-05-2015, 16:51
"Admit" seems to be an operative word, when you're addressing me, rus:D

Sounds like you are well and truly in the confessional Pen......"bless me Rus for I have sinned ............" :10241:

rusmeister
29-05-2015, 19:01
Sounds like you are well and truly in the confessional Pen......"bless me Rus for I have sinned ............" :10241:

Vossy, there's a world of difference between thinking yourself right, and thinking yourself better than others.

Uncle Wally
29-05-2015, 23:08
Vossy, there's a world of difference between thinking yourself right, and thinking yourself better than others.



But thinking yourself righteous is not better.

rusmeister
30-05-2015, 08:02
But thinking yourself righteous is not better.

Which is what I said.

nicklcool
03-06-2015, 05:48
Because you are writing "utterances" so primitive, it is humiliating for an intelligent creature to read them.



Yes penka, difficult to take that nonsense seriously.


Of course the numbnuts and zhenka penka cannot understand my "utterances" - did you two even bother to look up Kurt Vonnegut?? It's simple enough even for a primitive monkey to do these days, you just use Google. Allow me to paraphrase his famous quote: a sane man to an insane society must seem insane.



I find some opinions of your appalling.
Zhenka Penka do you find the following appalling?? First the leftists pushed for sex ed for younger and younger children, in the schools. Now there are reports of transsexual promotion going on in schools, for children as young as five in Kindergarten! The poor Irish have now given in to the LGBT OOM demands and passed gay "marriage," and over on the other side of the pond the sickening Bruce Jenner's story is getting tons of press and accolades.

If you do not find this appalling, you probably do not have children of your own, and the thought of how to raise children is purely theorhetical for you. If you do have children of your own, well, I'm not sure where but someway somehow the wiring in your brain got crossed. :Loco:

vossy7
03-06-2015, 08:29
Of course the numbnuts and zhenka penka cannot understand my "utterances" - did you two even bother to look up Kurt Vonnegut?? It's simple enough even for a primitive monkey to do these days, you just use Google. Allow me to paraphrase his famous quote: a sane man to an insane society must seem insane.


Zhenka Penka do you find the following appalling?? First the leftists pushed for sex ed for younger and younger children, in the schools. Now there are reports of transsexual promotion going on in schools, for children as young as five in Kindergarten! The poor Irish have now given in to the LGBT OOM demands and passed gay "marriage," and over on the other side of the pond the sickening Bruce Jenner's story is getting tons of press and accolades.

If you do not find this appalling, you probably do not have children of your own, and the thought of how to raise children is purely theorhetical for you. If you do have children of your own, well, I'm not sure where but someway somehow the wiring in your brain got crossed. :Loco:

Moderators : I believe the tone of this post is not correct ,deserves a ban!

Nobbynumbnuts
03-06-2015, 09:36
...First the leftists pushed for sex ed for younger and younger children, in the schools. Now there are reports of transsexual promotion going on in schools, for children as young as five in Kindergarten.............

..an urban myth

penka
03-06-2015, 10:09
Moderators : I believe the tone of this post is not correct ,deserves a ban!

It certainly does.

nicklcool
03-06-2015, 12:58
Zhenka Penka do you find the following appalling?? First the leftists pushed for sex ed for younger and younger children, in the schools. Now there are reports of transsexual promotion going on in schools, for children as young as five in Kindergarten! The poor Irish have now given in to the LGBT OOM demands and passed gay "marriage," and over on the other side of the pond the sickening Bruce Jenner's story is getting tons of press and accolades.

If you do not find this appalling, you probably do not have children of your own, and the thought of how to raise children is purely theorhetical for you. If you do have children of your own, well, I'm not sure where but someway somehow the wiring in your brain got crossed. :Loco:



Moderators : I believe the tone of this post is not correct ,deserves a ban!


It certainly does.
Now wait a minute! My tone only changed when penka said I was making primitive utterances that were humialiting to respond to! She changed the tone vossy, not I. If the modes want to let loose they should ban us both, but really we're only using heavy rhetoric and metaphors....if that's banworthy then sadly the PC brownshirts must have invaded this little corner of the democratic web, too :(

..an urban myth
Nobby which part is an urban legend? Anecdotally I myself experienced the sex ed in primary school in the early 90s (in 7th grade at that time)and plenty of articles have shown that sex ed is being taught still in primary school, att even younger ages.
The transgenger acclimation in primary school of recent history is also in the news, with a children's book introduced to Kindergartners and transgender bathrooms being mandated by law in a widespread fsshion.
These two aspects may be of a limited scope for now, but the point is, just like the now widespread acceptance of premarital sex and divorce, with each LGBT "victory" our society will see growing proportions participating in the LGBT lifestyle. That's not pure conjecture as has been suggested by rather an educated guess based on the history of other social movements' impacts on the behavior of society at large (I'd love to hear other hypotheses on the impact on society, rather than just be called a neandrathal!)

The impact of gay marriage may not a "good" or "bad" thing for society, but let's at least consider the effects of that on society before blinding celebrating each successive LGBT "victory"!

Judge
03-06-2015, 12:58
Moderators : I believe the tone of this post is not correct ,deserves a ban!

Yes, let's try and keep a nicer tone....and not get too personal. ...

There wasn't anything really ban worthy in the post, anyways, too hot today to ban...

Nobbynumbnuts
03-06-2015, 13:36
Now wait a minute! My tone only changed when penka said I was making primitive utterances that were humialiting to respond to! She changed the tone vossy, not I. If the modes want to let loose they should ban us both, but really we're only using heavy rhetoric and metaphors....if that's banworthy then sadly the PC brownshirts must have invaded this little corner of the democratic web, too :(

Nobby which part is an urban legend? Anecdotally I myself experienced the sex ed in primary school in the early 90s (in 7th grade at that time)and plenty of articles have shown that sex ed is being taught still in primary school, att even younger ages.
The transgenger acclimation in primary school of recent history is also in the news, with a children's book introduced to Kindergartners and transgender bathrooms being mandated by law in a widespread fsshion.
These two aspects may be of a limited scope for now, but the point is, just like the now widespread acceptance of premarital sex and divorce, with each LGBT "victory" our society will see growing proportions participating in the LGBT lifestyle. That's not pure conjecture as has been suggested by rather an educated guess based on the history of other social movements' impacts on the behavior of society at large (I'd love to hear other hypotheses on the impact on society, rather than just be called a neandrathal!)

The impact of gay marriage may not a "good" or "bad" thing for society, but let's at least consider the effects of that on society before blinding celebrating each successive LGBT "victory"!

..sex education is not taught to 5 year olds. Not in the UK anyway. If you'd like to try and prove otherwise.......knock yerself out! ;)

rusmeister
03-06-2015, 21:05
Moderators : I believe the tone of this post is not correct ,deserves a ban!

I think Vossy's post too agressive; deserves a ban!

rusmeister
03-06-2015, 21:06
It certainly does.

If you can't beat 'em, try to get 'em banned...

rusmeister
03-06-2015, 21:07
..sex education is not taught to 5 year olds. Not in the UK anyway. If you'd like to try and prove otherwise.......knock yerself out! ;)

Not YET, Nobby, in some places. I don't know what planet you're on, but the trend on Earth is undeniable.

I'm bookmarking this post; this will be fun to start peppering with the reports I see every week and almost every day...

Capman
03-06-2015, 21:23
The transgenger acclimation in primary school of recent history is also in the news, with a children's book introduced to Kindergartners and transgender bathrooms being mandated by law in a widespread fsshion.


I believe the bathrooms you're referring to are Handy-cap accessible bathrooms. Code requires each public restroom to have one for a certain number of people as well as ambulatory stalls. If the school restroom doesn't have enough room in both the his and her restrooms then they must have one unisex bathroom available for both sexes. It cannot be within the regular his and her restrooms. It's code for all public bathrooms not just schools and it really isn't a transgender bathroom.

The reason for it mainly is cost savings. Cheaper to build a unisex ADA bathroom than completely remodel two gang bathrooms.

Nobbynumbnuts
03-06-2015, 21:48
Not YET, Nobby, in some places. I don't know what planet you're on, but the trend on Earth is undeniable.

I'm bookmarking this post; this will be fun to start peppering with the reports I see every week and almost every day...

....which places? I live in a world that's ruled by facts, not urban myths :rolleyes:

Nobbynumbnuts
03-06-2015, 21:57
......Nobby which part is an urban legend? Anecdotally I myself experienced the sex ed in primary school in the early 90s (in 7th grade at that time)and plenty of articles have shown that sex ed is being taught still in primary school, att even younger ages.
The transgenger acclimation in primary school of recent history is also in the news, with a children's book introduced to Kindergartners and transgender bathrooms being mandated by law in a widespread fsshion.
These two aspects may be of a limited scope for now, but the point is, just like the now widespread acceptance of premarital sex and divorce, with each LGBT "victory" our society will see growing proportions participating in the LGBT lifestyle. That's not pure conjecture as has been suggested by rather an educated guess based on the history of other social movements' impacts on the behavior of society at large (I'd love to hear other hypotheses on the impact on society, rather than just be called a neandrathal!)

The impact of gay marriage may not a "good" or "bad" thing for society, but let's at least consider the effects of that on society before blinding celebrating each successive LGBT "victory"!

You had sex education in 7th grade? I'm glad to hear it, that would have made you 12-13 years of age, the age of puberty. :10293:

Still waiting for facts to support the claim sex education starts at 5 y.o. :rolleyes:

nicklcool
03-06-2015, 22:25
You had sex education in 7th grade? I'm glad to hear it, that would have made you 12-13 years of age, the age of puberty. :10293:

Still waiting for facts to support the claim sex education starts at 5 y.o. :rolleyes:


Nobby where do you get your news? I hope you're not watching TV News :vomit: (I suspect you're not since the expat Current Affairs Forum crowd is too informed for that dribble), but if you've heard nothing of the sex ed and transgender trends in US schools, I suspect you're making the mistake of reading a MSM rag like Washington Post or USA Today - I even did so only four years ago, then a friend turned me onto Drudge, which posts links from all shades & types of news sites. If Drudge is too partisan for you, try some of the blogs, which have led to the "citizen journalism" we hear so much about lately.

For your reading pleasure, here are two recent articles:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/08/29/cps-mandates-sexual-health-education-for-kindergartners/

http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20150417/NEWS/150419165

I also question whether puberty is the milestone by which we should decide when sex ed is appropriate...all it did for me and my peers was show us how to have pre-marital sex and implied that this was OK. :9451: You can debate whether the expansion of acceptance of premarital sex was a good thing or not for society but it's hard to debate whether expanding sex ed was a causal factor.

Likewise you and vossy have yet to mention a single causal result that is likely to arise out of the approval of Gay Marriage in Ireland. :thumbdwn:

Nobbynumbnuts
03-06-2015, 23:08
Nobby where do you get your news? I hope you're not watching TV News :vomit: (I suspect you're not since the expat Current Affairs Forum crowd is too informed for that dribble), but if you've heard nothing of the sex ed and transgender trends in US schools, I suspect you're making the mistake of reading a MSM rag like Washington Post or USA Today - I even did so only four years ago, then a friend turned me onto Drudge, which posts links from all shades & types of news sites. If Drudge is too partisan for you, try some of the blogs, which have led to the "citizen journalism" we hear so much about lately.

For your reading pleasure, here are two recent articles:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/08/29/cps-mandates-sexual-health-education-for-kindergartners/

http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20150417/NEWS/150419165

I also question whether puberty is the milestone by which we should decide when sex ed is appropriate...all it did for me and my peers was show us how to have pre-marital sex and implied that this was OK. :9451: You can debate whether the expansion of acceptance of premarital sex was a good thing or not for society but it's hard to debate whether expanding sex ed was a causal factor.

Likewise you and vossy have yet to mention a single causal result that is likely to arise out of the approval of Gay Marriage in Ireland. :thumbdwn:

Well, as i said previously, not in the UK lol! And hardly sex education anyway..

As for puberty being the milestone, it's certainly A milestone. I think kids should be completely aware about their bodies by the time their bodies are fully functional.

Uncle Wally
03-06-2015, 23:33
Well, as i said previously, not in the UK lol! And hardly sex education anyway..

As for puberty being the milestone, it's certainly A milestone. I think kids should be completely aware about their bodies by the time their bodies are fully functional.



Yeah in the UK they give kids a more "hands on" approach. Up close and personal.