Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

Options
13567…13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    All people currently have the right to a marriage. The problem here is that people are not satisfied with what a marriage is defined as. A marriage in an Irish legal context is a union between a man and a woman.



    If a referendum were to be announced on the issue, would you vote yes or no? You say that you think CP are adaquete, but let's say the goverment decide to ask the people to include civil marriage for gay couples in the constitution, would you be for or against it?



    As for Christianity, I think there is room for civil partnerships to be blessed in the church as long as both involved are willing to
    live by Christian standards in respect to sexual ethics. It's a gray area for me.



    Wouldn't that basically mean a gay couple would be restricted from doing anything sexual together or showing their love towards one and other?


    What isn't a gray area for me is that the union between a man and a woman is something distinct from the union between two of the same gender.[/QUOTE]


    How so is it distinct? Apart from the gender, what is so different about a consenting, loving couple who want to get married?


  • Options
    #63
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ChocolateSauce: I'm sure one could find equally as many journals in support of families with a mother and a father. That's why it is utterly unconvincing. It leaves me more in doubt of whether or not gay marriage should be legalised than in support.
    MultiUmm wrote:
    Wouldn't that basically mean a gay couple would be restricted from doing anything sexual together or showing their love towards one and other?

    The conservative context for blessing homosexual unions would be one that would insist on celibacy. Other more liberal groups would hold different views. One can show love without sex.
    MultiUmm wrote:
    How so is it distinct? Apart from the gender, what is so different about a consenting, loving couple who want to get married?

    The family has to be considered.

    The two major differences are:
    1) A mother and a father can biologically bring forth their own children.
    2) Homosexual relationships cannot provide a child with a mother and a father.


  • Options
    #64
    cotwold
    Registered Users Posts: 950 ✭✭✭cotwold


    Jakkass wrote: »
    All people currently have the right to a marriage. The problem here is that people are not satisfied with what a marriage is defined as. A marriage in an Irish legal context is a union between a man and a woman.

    The legal context is grey area. The constitution doesn't actually define marriage. It could be interpretated as conferring the right to same sex couples as well if the political will to do so existed.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for Christianity, I think there is room for civil partnerships to be blessed in the church as long as both involved are willing to live by Christian standards in respect to sexual ethics. It's a gray area for me.
    You speak of Christianity and Christian values but theres no point unless you actually name which Church you're actually going on about.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What isn't a gray area for me is that the union between a man and a woman is something distinct from the union between two of the same gender.

    They are distinct from each other but only in so far as the gender combinations. Nothing else relative in the eyes of the law separate them and so they should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

    This issue is one of law, religion actually has no place in it. Any opinion or attitude influenced or conditioned by religion isn't relevant in a proper discussion about same sex marriage.


  • Options
    #65
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ChocolateSauce: I'm sure one could find equally as many journals in support of families with a mother and a father.

    Can you? If they existed, why have all the above organisations not considered them? The simple answer is they don't exist. Ones which compare a mother/father family to a single parent family don't count.

    2) Homosexual relationships cannot provide a child with a mother and a father.

    Why is this a bad thing? It does not matter! What matters is a) love and support, and b) There is enough time to raise the child properly. Two loving parents can do this.

    So what if there is a chance the child might not be as "manly" or as "girly" as one with parents of different genders? Surely what matters is that the kid is raised to be a functioning member of society?

    Regarding that topic:
    wikipedia wrote:
    Where some studies have shown that children raised by lesbian mothers conform to stereotypical gender-role behaviour, researchers have observed more relaxed boundaries in sex-typed play (dolls versus trucks) and in gender-stereotypical career aspirations among such children.[29] The argument that same-sex parents are unsuitable for the same reason that single parenting is not an optimal situation hinges on the assumption that children of single-parent households suffer due to a lack of gender role models, rather than due to a lack of parental care and supervision associated with single parenting.[30] Whether studies on single-parent families necessarily relate to parental gender roles or to the quality of parenting provided by same-sex couples is challenged, such as stated in a 2006 report by the Department of Justice (Canada), that it is "independent of the sexual orientation of parents."[31]


  • Options
    #66
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ChocolateSauce: I'm sure one could find equally as many journals in support of families with a mother and a father. That's why it is utterly unconvincing. It leaves me more in doubt of whether or not gay marriage should be legalised than in support.
    So you have no problem believing journals that emphasise the role of fathers in a child's development (http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61635334&postcount=208) but are entirely unconvinced when somebody shows ample evidence in support of same-sex parents. Surely if you believe one, then you must believe the other; or if you disbelieve one you should disbelieve the other. Anything else is pure double-standard.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Aard: I am doubtful, and I don't think we should be taking risks. I said in that thread also if you read earlier in it, that there were some journals confirming, and some journals going against such a view. Hence why I feel that it is best to keep supporting the traditional family that we can be confident about as opposed to other forms that we are currently in doubt about.

    It intrigues me that all the research that comments about the gender impact of either a mother and a father that had come previous to much of this research is now rendered obsolete. Could it be that a cultural bias is interfering in what we are trying to investigate?


  • Options
    #68
    cotwold
    Registered Users Posts: 950 ✭✭✭cotwold


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Aard:Hence why I feel that it is best to keep supporting the traditional family that we can be confident about as opposed to other forms that we are currently in doubt about.

    Well if we follow your approach and your logic we will always be in doubt.


  • Options
    #69
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Why stop there? Logically extending your argument then we should also include blacks and Jews.

    ...but what if under your scheme the allowed Aryan hetrosexual Irish adoptive parents turned out not to be mass goers? Oh, the ignominy the poor child will face....etc etc.


    Look two consenting gay married people Know that their child would suffer cruelty from their peers.(and older)

    by adopting a child they are taking a decision knowingly to inflict this pain on the child.

    in my first post i said how tragic it is that gay people have maternal/paternal instincts like everybody else.
    To indulge that instinct despite this knowledge would display to me that they are putting Their needs above the needs of the child.that in my eyes would make me question their fitness for parenthood in the first place.

    As regards massgoers well dont ask me about them as i am agnostic,and have a lot of contempt for much of catholic behaviour.

    i will ignore the black/Jewish crap.


  • Options
    #70
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MultiUmm wrote: »
    Why not? Why would you be so insecure about your children learning that not everybody is hetrosexual?
    Simply because I believe that it is not the states place to educate children on issues such as Homosexuality. When the time comes I will tell them about some peoples sexual preferences but it is not the schools job to do so.
    MultiUmm wrote: »
    This doesn't just apply to homosexuality. Would you also be insecure about your children learning that not everyone is white or Christian?.
    No, I have no problem with the School telling them that people are not white or christian.
    MultiUmm wrote: »
    How do you expect prejudices to be eleminated, or even reduced? Or would you prefer that bigotry and ignorance would still remain rife?
    I would prefare that discrimination against homosexuals was reduced, but not through the school system.
    This: Is basically what I'm talking about. IMO every parents worst nightmare.


  • Options
    #71
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,120 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    I have taught the children of gay parents. None of them were gay.

    They were no more likely to be bullied because of their parents than for any other reason weak people like to bully.

    They did tend to be better able to deflect it though, probably because of their high self-esteem.

    Most 'anti-gay' bullying in schools is against straight people, usually by closet cases.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Could it be that a cultural bias is interfering in what we are trying to investigate?
    Only as much cultural bias as has interfered with the studies that you have posted.


  • Options
    #73
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I would prefare that discrimination against homosexuals was reduced, but not through the school system.
    This: Is basically what I'm talking about. IMO every parents worst nightmare.
    So you want to reduce discrimination against gays, but in the same breath state that your child's curiosity about homosexuality would be your worst nightmare. Do you see the irony in that?


  • Options
    #74
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    So you want to reduce discrimination against gays, but in the same breath state that your child's curiosity about homosexuality would be your worst nightmare. Do you see the irony in that?
    No I mean that the child should learn about Homosexuality only when the childs parent thinks is appropriate. Having a yound child come home from school and telling of how they learned of homosexual relationships is simply unacceptable.


  • Options
    #75
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No I mean that the child should learn about Homosexuality only when the childs parent thinks is appropriate. Having a yound child come home from school and telling of how they learned of homosexual relationships is simply unacceptable.
    Why is it unacceptable? They're going to find out sooner or later; wouldn't it be better done in a regulated environment, than somewhere where personal biases would come into play?


  • Options
    #76
    cotwold
    Registered Users Posts: 950 ✭✭✭cotwold


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I would prefare that discrimination against homosexuals was reduced, but not through the school system.

    How about aiming to rid all discrimination against homosexuals, that would probably be aiming a little to high though. Almost as high as conferring them with equal marriage right. (god forbid) :P


  • Options
    #77
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    Why is it unacceptable?
    That the state steps in to teach children about Homosexual relationships.
    Aard wrote: »
    They're going to find out sooner or later; wouldn't it be better done in a regulated environment, than somewhere where personal biases would come into play?
    Are you trying to suggest that a parents advice isn't regulated ?


  • Options
    #78
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That the state steps in to teach children about Homosexual relationships.
    That doesn't answer why "having a yound child come home from school and telling of how they learned of homosexual relationships" is unacceptable. Is it because you're homophobic?
    Are you trying to suggest that a parents advice isn't regulated ?
    Yes. Some parents will teach their children that homosexuality is a sin, that it's unnatural, and that there is something inherently wrong with gay people.


  • Options
    #79
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    That doesn't answer why "having a yound child come home from school and telling of how they learned of homosexual relationships" is unacceptable. Is it because you're homophobic?
    No it is because young children should not be tought about Adult relationships in any form. It is not the states role to educate children on the nature of Homosexuality.


    Aard wrote: »
    Yes. Some parents will teach their children that homosexuality is a sin, that it's unnatural, and that there is something inherently wrong with gay people.
    That's an opinion, not fact.


  • Options
    #80
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No it is because young children should not be tought about Adult relationships in any form.
    So they should not be taught about heterosexual relationships?
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It is not the states role to educate children on the nature of Homosexuality.
    Why not? They educate about hetersexuality. Not educating it doesn't mean that it will go away.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That's an opinion, not fact.
    It is a fact. I know somebody whose parents have taught him that homosexuality is evil. And I'm willing to bet that he's not the only one who has been taught that. Saying, "That's an opinion, not fact," is just a cop-out, a burying of the head in the sand to the truth.


  • Options
    #81
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Aard wrote: »
    Tbh, I get the feeling that most people who say they are against gay marriage "just because of adoption rights" are using it as a cop out; the reality is that they have a deep-rooted dislike of the idea of two men showing love to each other. Sure, there are some who say that a child should have a mother and a father, but they're in the minority; most can't muster up anything beyond "it's unnatural for two men to be together".


    Also, I can't help but notice that (in this country) it's primarily Christians who make the most noise anti-gay-marriage-wise. They didn't become homophobic, then gravitate to Christianity; rather, they became Christian and then became homophobic. This leads me to believe that all of this homophobia is conditioned, and that nobody is born homophobic. So, for me, the idea of homophobia is just as unnatural as the idea of homosexuality is for homophobes themselves.

    With the greatest respect this does not apply to me therefore I consider it untrue! I am not using adoption as a cop out and before you ask no as such i have no reson other than prejudice but at the end of the day thats my right. I have no problem with people being gay infact I get a good laugh out of a gay friend of mine so if i am being stereo typical i have to say i love the graham norton type just as I can say I like the Megan fox type in women

    i also said if the powers that be vetted gay people and accepted them so would I. But at the end of the day I cannot ignore the fact I am prejudice. I just cannot accept it.

    But lets bring the arguement further. If 2 couples of equal stature as in sound in mind and body are going for adoption. One couple is gay one is "Straight" how do you define which would should get the child?

    Money?

    All that is left is moral judgement is this fair? Sometimes you positivly discriminate sometimes you negativly discriminate. Its got nothing to do with being christian!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Aard: that depends on whether or not you believe that disagreement amounts to hatred. I don't consider being open to civil partnerships instead of marriage to be "homophobic".


  • Options
    #83
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Speak for yourself, I don't want my future children learning about Homosexual relationships in school.


    Theories are theories, you can't provide them as evidence to support your views.



    Again speak for yourself.

    And what if your future children or their peers are homosexual?

    Is it not better for it to be mentioned in school that not all couples are male-female, that not all children have to grow up to marry someone of the opposite sex. Surely it would be better for your child to know there was nothing wrong with them rather than think they were some kind of freak (at the same time educating children for who the issue does not directly apply to).

    And many gay people have known they were gay from very early childhood, an awareness of difference isn't a sexual awareness in a childs eyes! The nature of homosexuality does not need to be "adult" when discussed with children.


  • Options
    #84
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    ynotdu wrote: »
    I think it is both a common sense and a human rights issue.
    how dare a society prevent ANY two consenting adults who love each other from their wish to publicly express it through marridge?

    for children to be adopted by a gay couple is IMO a breach/betrayel of Their human rights as they cannot choose their parents and have no say.
    Their is no doubt that these children would be the subject of snide remarks throughout their childhood as things stand.

    children are born by and large by hetrosexual sex,it seems to be natures way of saying that a femine and masculine mix is best for balance.

    Harsh though it may sound to gay couples but would,nt adopting a child almost guarantee that they would get way above average hurts in their formative years?

    it is SO cruel to gay couples who have maternal/paternal instincts like everybody else,but i think it sadly is realism to say so.

    Eh a breach of human rights!!! what child gets to choose their parents either biological or adoptive?


  • Options
    #85
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Aard: I am doubtful, and I don't think we should be taking risks. I said in that thread also if you read earlier in it, that there were some journals confirming, and some journals going against such a view. Hence why I feel that it is best to keep supporting the traditional family that we can be confident about as opposed to other forms that we are currently in doubt about.

    It intrigues me that all the research that comments about the gender impact of either a mother and a father that had come previous to much of this research is now rendered obsolete. Could it be that a cultural bias is interfering in what we are trying to investigate?

    Weren't your cited studies in reference to absent fathers? That isn't a journal going against gay parenting, that's a separate issue. Did your studies focus on children with 2 fathers or make comparative studies with children in a family of two mothers?


  • Options
    #86
    Dr. Baltar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭Dr. Baltar


    Where as I am both pro gay marriage and pro gay adoption, I would just like to also state that I agree with IWasFrozen in regards to the education of young children about adult relationships both hetero and homosexual.

    It is not the purpose of the state to inform children of homosexuality, sexuality and sex.

    Granted 12+ year olds should be taught "the facts of life" in order to prevent STIs and Teenage pregnancy but any younger I don't think that it is appropriate.

    As for the gay adoption argument: I personally believe that if the adoptee is to have two loving parents then by all means it should be allowed.

    I would also like to give this example: An orphan in a third world country.
    That orphan would be so much better off being raised in a homosexual environment in Ireland than it would living in a third world country.


  • Options
    #87
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    anoisaris wrote: »
    Eh a breach of human rights!!! what child gets to choose their parents either biological or adoptive?

    er nobody does,but in a case where there is almost certainty that a child will suffer abuse in society it is up to society to protect their human rights in advance.

    Gay people are first and foremost PEOPLE,their sexuality in an ideal world should be irrelevent,and as i said we are backward in not accepting gay marridge,THEIR human rights are very much undermined and the govt who allowed just a civil union should hang their head in shame,as should people who claim to be christian but are against it.

    gay people i imagine would know more than most what it is like to suffer at the hands of verbal and physical abuse,why they would want to risk their child being hurt this way is beyond me.

    i dont know what area other posters are living in but in my area at least the child would be savaged by their peers and others.


  • Options
    #88
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ynotdu wrote: »
    Gay people are first and foremost PEOPLE,their sexuality in an ideal world should be irrelevent,and as i said we are backward in not accepting gay marridge,THEIR human rights are very much undermined and the govt who allowed just a civil union should hang their head in shame,as should people who claim to be christian but are against it.

    Guilt tripping people isn't an effective form of argument. I personally do not feel any shame for being in opposition to gay marriage and being in favour of civil unions. I think it is the right thing to do.


  • Options
    #89
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Guilt tripping people isn't an effective form of argument. I personally do not feel any shame for being in opposition to gay marriage and being in favour of civil unions. I think it is the right thing to do.


    so you thought you would try guilt tripping me because i believe gay marriage should be allowed:confused:


  • Options
    #90
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ynotdu wrote: »
    so you thought you would try guilt tripping me because i believe gay marriage should be allowed:confused:

    I don't mind what your support, I'm open for discussion. I believe that traditional marriage is best, and if LGBT couples are dissatisfied with civil unions they should seek changes in the Civil Partnership Bill rather than seek a whole redefinition of marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't mind what your support, I'm open for discussion. I believe that traditional marriage is best, and if LGBT couples are dissatisfied with civil unions they should seek changes in the Civil Partnership Bill rather than seek a whole redefinition of marriage.

    by that i assume the catholic/christian version of marridge?

    the facts are that priests were allowed to marry up to around the 14th century.the reason it was stopped was because the widows and children of the priest inherited the home and surrounding land.
    the greedy goats in the vatican decided it was theirs by right.
    look what these *christians*turned the priesthood into by banning marriage:mad:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement