Well the Urban dictionary knew it. Not one I have heard of.

Yes, the Urban Dictionary.

Ohhhh. Now I worry that BooBoo may have meant to offend with the use of the term. This is very unwelcome news.

DanDare wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is derived from the the term "poofter" which is an old term for a homosexual.

I think Spinozasgalt was highlighting the fact that BooBoo spelt it wrong. I'm pretty sure an Australian would know what 'poof' means.

Actually its a term that has just about disappeared from general use here. A lot of derogatory slang has vanished from our culture over the past thirty years or so. I take that as a good sign.

Well good, I'm glad to hear it.

It has been a great change. Being called a homo is not a derogatory comment any more.
Just the same as people use hetro, bi or trans. Just a description.

Spinozasgalt wrote:Ohhhh. Now I worry that BooBoo may have meant to offend with the use of the term. This is very unwelcome news.

Whisht, it's all right, mummy's here.

Fallible wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:Ohhhh. Now I worry that BooBoo may have meant to offend with the use of the term. This is very unwelcome news.

Whisht, it's all right, mummy's here.

The other day I think I was attracted to another man.

Get out.

Greyman wrote:
A turnout of 61.5% only means the opinion of 38.5% is unknown; but it doesn't matter because they just didn't care enough about whatever it was to express it.

They have been intimidated by the Gay Lobby to remain at home. The fact remains that a majority of the electorate either voted NO or didn't vote for gay marriage. That gives me hope that this capitulation to the gay agenda will be overturned.

Hope only prolongs pain as the classic says.

Paul wrote:

DaveScriv wrote:

Greyman wrote:

BooBoo wrote:Anyway, 62.1% voted yes with a turnout of 61.5%. This means that only a minority (38.2%) actually turned out to vote yes.

Yes, and that 37.9% of voters voted no with a turnout of 61.5% means only 23.3% of the population voted "no". That is a smaller minority.

A turnout of 61.5% only means the opinion of 38.5% is unknown; but it doesn't matter because they just didn't care enough about whatever it was to express it.

Quite so.
A point which the many lefties here should remember with regard to the UK General Election and their comments about only whatever % of the total population actually voted Conservative.

And yes, I'm perfectly aware that in the GE there were more than 2 alternatives, but suggest that most UKIP voters, and the DUP and UUP voters, and some of the remaining LibDem voters preferred Cameron to Miliband as PM if they couldn't have their own guys, so a fallacy to say that everyone who didn't vote Conservative were completely anti Tory.

and as the GE wasn't a single issue poll, it's also a fallacy to suggest that everyone who did vote Tory supported the entire Tory manifesto, but that won't stop Cameron trying to suggest that they did, even though (apparently) some of his cabinet don't.

That's (voters not necessarily supporting everything in a manifesto) always the case regarding every party in every election.

For example, although I'm generally inclined to the political right (Conservative or UKIP, depending on individual policies), when it comes to 'academies' and 'free schools' I agree with Labour, perhaps even more to the left, thinking complete local authority control and planning of schools in each area is the best policy.

Getting back on topic - well done Ireland, especially all those people who went to the trouble and expense of travelling back to vote who are currently living in other countries.

I'm quite enjoying reading the butt hurt comments on US right wing and religious sites.

BooBoo wrote:

Greyman wrote:
A turnout of 61.5% only means the opinion of 38.5% is unknown; but it doesn't matter because they just didn't care enough about whatever it was to express it.

They have been intimidated by the Gay Lobby to remain at home. The fact remains that a majority of the electorate either voted NO or didn't vote for gay marriage. That gives me hope that this capitulation to the gay agenda will be overturned.

Hope in vain. The constitution has been changed understand? What is the gay agenda? Getting rid of the rcc? Hope so.

BooBoo wrote:

Greyman wrote:
A turnout of 61.5% only means the opinion of 38.5% is unknown; but it doesn't matter because they just didn't care enough about whatever it was to express it.

They have been intimidated by the Gay Lobby to remain at home.

Evidence?
Oh that's right, there isn't any, because that didn't happen.

BooBoo wrote:The fact remains that a majority of the electorate either voted NO or didn't vote for gay marriage.

Incorrect, a majority voted yes or didn't care.

BooBoo wrote: That gives me hope that this capitulation to the gay agenda will be overturned.

What's the gay agenda, pray tell.
Maybe it's because I'm bi, but I still haven't received my revised edition yet. Maybe you can sent me a copy?

And you have not answered my quesitons Booboo.

You got problem now Booboo, I know lol

BooBoo wrote:

Greyman wrote:
A turnout of 61.5% only means the opinion of 38.5% is unknown; but it doesn't matter because they just didn't care enough about whatever it was to express it.

They have been intimidated by the Gay Lobby to remain at home. The fact remains that a majority of the electorate either voted NO or didn't vote for gay marriage. That gives me hope that this capitulation to the gay agenda will be overturned.

Lol. Utter bullshit. Why would people be afraid to vote in a secret ballot?

The No's campaign was a monumental failure. They lied, spread misinformation, tried to reframe the debate and inadvertently insulted everyone in a non-traditional family. Irish prople saw their bullshit for what is was and voted for equality.

You may as well suck up those little tears because this won't be overturned.

BooBoo wrote:They have been intimidated by the Gay Lobby to remain at home. The fact remains that a majority of the electorate either voted NO or didn't vote for gay marriage. That gives me hope that this capitulation to the gay agenda will be overturned.

They have been intimidated by the Catholic Lobby to remain at home. The fact remains that a vast majority of the electorate either voted YES or didn't vote against gay marriage. That gives me hope that capitulation to the Catholic agenda will soon be completely overturned.

BooBoo wrote:

Greyman wrote:
A turnout of 61.5% only means the opinion of 38.5% is unknown; but it doesn't matter because they just didn't care enough about whatever it was to express it.

They have been intimidated by the Gay Lobby to remain at home. The fact remains that a majority of the electorate either voted NO or didn't vote for gay marriage. That gives me hope that this capitulation to the gay agenda will be overturned.

I don't see how you can justify that comment, considering one constituency voted no, and it was a close run thing in several other rural constituencies. I'm guessing (not being there myself) the social pressure in those places was about even. If turnout had been a few % higher in much of rural Ireland it might not have changed the result, but it could have been a lot closer, say 55:45 or less difference.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Please demonstrate a direct causal link between allowing SSM and:
1. Bestiality.
2. Incest.
3. Polygamy.
After that, please explain why SSM is so immoral.
To help you out a bit: there are exactly 0 countries where SSM has been legalised, where any of the 'doom' slippery slopes you've asserted, have occured.
We've had SSM for over 10 years here and society still thrives, no-one's allowed to fuck, much less marry animals, or their relatives or multiple people.

If you accept the principle of "equality" then you cannot discriminate against consenting adults who want to marry their first cousins, children or siblings (i.e incest). You also cannot discriminate those who wish to marry more than one person. Why should love between individuals be restricted only to couples? In fact, allowing gay marriage whilst forbidding polygamy is ridiculous as the latter can produce children whereas the former cannot. It would be utterly hypocritical of the liberal goonies. Bestial marriages have already taken place in the United States: http://naijagists.com/bizarre-wedding-p ... alifornia/

SSM is immoral because it recognizes homosexuality - once treated as a mental illness by professionals - as being of equal worth as heterosexuality. That is something that makes no biological or social sense. It will serve to undermine the institution of marriage and the family as the natural result of marriage. Married gay couples will now insist on equal rights to adoption, tax breaks and so on.