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

Full rights for the LGBT community.

Options
13567…63

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    However, I can't see much point in poking you with a stick over this - you disagree with the idea, and as I said, I accept that as your right whether you can give a rationale or not.

    Equally cordially, I'd propose that I gave a "rationale", but it just doesn't match yours.


  • Options
    #63
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That's the "for better or for worse" aspect - the protections for minorities are the universal rights enshrined in law, but a society is only going to enshrine universal rights in law that the majority accepts.

    Indeed, but in the case of legislating for same-sex civil marriage the majority's consent is not needed (as far as I know), only the majority of public representatives. So my question is effectively asking: should TD's vote against the majority will of the population if those TD's feel the right of the minority to undue restriction trumps the will of the majority to maintain that restriction.

    As a question it's a bit more theoretical, and beyond the scope of this thread I think.


  • Options
    #64
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Indeed, but in the case of legislating for same-sex civil marriage the majority's consent is not needed (as far as I know), only the majority of public representatives. So my question is effectively asking: should TD's vote against the majority will of the population if those TD's feel the right of the minority to undue restriction trumps the will of the majority to maintain that restriction.

    As a question it's a bit more theoretical, and beyond the scope of this thread I think.

    It's a very general question in a representative democracy!
    Liam Byrne wrote:
    Equally cordially, I'd propose that I gave a "rationale", but it just doesn't match yours.

    I can see that that's your view, but I'd say that what you've actually done is run the goalposts round the field a few times, and then assumed the answer to the question. As I said, though, I can't really see that discussion going anywhere profitable to the thread, although I'll happily take it up by PM or somewhere else at your convenience.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #65
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Indeed, but in the case of legislating for same-sex civil marriage the majority's consent is not needed (as far as I know), only the majority of public representatives. So my question is effectively asking: should TD's vote against the majority will of the population if those TD's feel the right of the minority to undue restriction trumps the will of the majority to maintain that restriction.

    As a question it's a bit more theoretical, and beyond the scope of this thread I think.

    A referendum on the issue woldn't be a good thing as it would be utterly divisive and will be avoided at all costs by the government. Legislation through the Dáil would probably be easiest and best. I do wonder what sort of fudge they will come up with on this though.

    Grounding arguments on whats natural/unnatural probably isn't the best idea, as many people have equally valid and strong opinions on it. When it comes to adoption the interests of the child and its ability to thrive in the flawed society in which we live should be paramount. This over rides all arguments relating to "rights" and entitlements based on sexual orientation.

    The right to give blood is another case. Homosexuals are not discriminated against, but men who have had intercourse with men. IBTS do not want to limit the supply of donors, far from it, and the rejection isn't made on ideological grounds as some here would argue, but the increased risk of carrying a blood bourne disease. People who have lived for a substantial period of time in the UK are also deemed to be an increased risk, yet they don't complain. One often gets the feeling that militant homosexuals display a persecution complex, often at odds with reality, seeking out ways to be offended. This is of course without addressing the real issues which the community face.


  • Options
    #66
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That's the "for better or for worse" aspect - the protections for minorities are the universal rights enshrined in law, but a society is only going to enshrine universal rights in law that the majority accepts.

    Imperfect, but how else would one do it?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    A benevolent dictatorship?

    Snarkily,
    Denerick.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    oncevotedff
    Registered Users Posts: 232 ✭✭oncevotedff


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    ...This is because they cannot marry or adopt children.

    Of course they can. It's just that they cannot marry people of the same gender. You could say the same thing about heterosexual people who are separated from their first marriage partner and unable to remarry for years. Isn't that discrimination? But why does anyone actually care about marriage? If you love someone and have decided to spend your life with them, do you really need someone to give your relationship the stamp of approval?

    As for the adoption thing. People, no matter their sexuality, should not have an automatic right to a child. While prospective adoptive parents should not be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality, the other side of that coin is that prospective parents should not be deemed fit just because the law says they have a "right" to be parents.

    Incidentally if a heterosexual single man wanted to adopt a child do you think he'd have a chance?


  • Options
    #68
    LookingFor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    oncevotedff wrote: »
    If you love someone and have decided to spend your life with them, do you really need someone to give your relationship the stamp of approval?

    You do if you want your relationship to be recognised for matters of health, inheritance, tax and so on.

    See the news story I posted a couple of pages ago on what can happen to a couple in the absence of that recognition.
    oncevotedff wrote: »
    As for the adoption thing. People, no matter their sexuality, should not have an automatic right to a child. While prospective adoptive parents should not be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality, the other side of that coin is that prospective parents should not be deemed fit just because the law says they have a "right" to be parents.

    Of course not, it's a conflation of the argument to say this is what's being asked for.


  • Options
    #69
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I can see that that's your view, but I'd say that what you've actually done is run the goalposts round the field a few times, and then assumed the answer to the question.

    I'd disagree, and I've admitted that it's a gut feeling based on the laws of nature.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As I said, though, I can't really see that discussion going anywhere profitable to the thread

    ...as have I; see the post that mentions "full rights" being subjective.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    although I'll happily take it up by PM or somewhere else at your convenience.

    Not much point, really, but thanks for the offer. I can appreciate that it's a grey-ish area, but I stand over it along the same lines - as pointed out - as single-parent adoption....is there anything to factually prove that a single, loving parent wouldn't be beneficial or better than nothing ? No. But is it right ? I don't think so (and that is even though it could affect me).


  • Options
    #70
    Dr. Baltar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭Dr. Baltar


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    The jury is still out on the causes of homosexulity. Some believe there is a genetic disposition to it and requires nurture to flick the switch.

    Granted, but ask any LGBT person whether it was by nature or nurture that they are LGBT and 99% will answer that it is something they are born with.
    I seriously think if I raised you gay you would "come out" as straight.


  • Options
    #71
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    I know plenty of gay people raised in hetrosexual families, the family environment won't "make" anyone gay, it may be part of a complex matrix, but in fairness to any gay people that I know, many of them don't have any interest in having/adopting kids, but those that do, have actually had to think long and hard about it, which is something that doesn't really occur to hetrosexual individuals as it's just assumed it's something you can do.

    Someone who has had to put so much thought into something (including hetrosexual individuals who cannot have kids) is in my mind already more prepared for parenthood than someone who "just can".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    dreamer_ire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,894 ✭✭✭dreamer_ire


    A couple of genuine questions for those opposing gay couples being eligible to be adoptive parents... if one person is the biological parent of the child would you oppose their parent adopting that child?

    The second question is that if a gay teenager is to be adopted would you have the same objections to a gay couple being the adopters?

    From my own perspective I support the equal rights for all irrespective of their sexual orientation, including the rights of gay couples to be considered as eligible to adopt. I'm curious as to whether you object to gay couples as parents or whether it depends on the situation.


  • Options
    #73
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dreamer_ire wrote: »
    if one person is the biological parent of the child would you oppose their parent adopting that child?

    If the person is gay, then this shouldn't arise.

    I'm straight, so could never contemplate sex with a male (even typing it feels weird).....a gay person would have to have unprotected sex with the opposite sex in order to become a biological parent, and therefore can't "really" be gay.
    dreamer_ire wrote: »
    The second question is that if a gay teenager is to be adopted would you have the same objections to a gay couple being the adopters?

    Now that is a good question. I would still propose that two different-sex viewpoints be required, because you then run the risk of segregating re 2 mothers for a lesbian child and 2 fathers for a gay child, because otherwise there's less life experience re growing up and - for example - puberty and first period, etc.

    On a related note, I'd be curious whether those who "prefer" co-ed schools to single-sex schools would carry that preference across to parenting, where the claim that the mixed-sex experience was "better" and produced a better person seems to apply ?

    Do those in favour of gay parents think that co-ed schools are better ?

    And if so, is there an inherent contradiction in that standpoint ?


  • Options
    #74
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,815 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I'm straight, so could never contemplate sex with a male (even typing it feels weird).....a gay person would have to have unprotected sex with the opposite sex in order to become a biological parent, and therefore can't "really" be gay.

    Have you never heard of artificial insemination? - also lots of people have realised they were gay subsequent to having a child

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #75
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    Have you never heard of artificial insemination?

    Of course :rolleyes:, but this in itself shouldn't be offered to individuals or unsuitable couples, which means its essentially the same discussion.

    The rest of your post debunks the whole "born gay" argument.


  • Options
    #76
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,815 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    There is no nor ever was a law saying homosexual people cannot marry
    Sulmac wrote: »
    Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I was being pedantic.

    No - that wasn't pedantic - that is ignorant

    The Civil Registration Act 2004 states
    For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if—
    (e) both parties are of the same sex.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #77
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,815 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The rest of your post debunks the whole "born gay" argument.

    No - it doesn't

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #78
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    No - that wasn't pedantic - that is ignorant

    The Civil Registration Act 2004 states
    It was pedantic. Homosexual people have the same right to marry someone of the opposing sex as a hetrosexual person.

    See ? Pedantic.


  • Options
    #79
    Apogee
    Registered Users Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭Apogee


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    But I am not discriminating, and no-one's "full rights" are being affected, just as mine aren't by me not being allowed to adopt.

    Single people are allowed to adopt in Ireland.
    During the period 1991-2004 there were a total of 66 adoptions by single applicants.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/unmarried-couples/adoption_and_unmarried_couples


  • Options
    #80
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Apogee wrote: »
    Single people are allowed to adopt in Ireland.

    News to me, and I wouldn't have voted in favour of this. But thanks for the clarification.

    I will, however, repeat the following question in case it gets missed, because I think it's a genuine and related question:
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Do those in favour of gay parents think that co-ed schools are better ?

    And if so, is there an inherent contradiction in that standpoint ?


  • Options
    #81
    dreamer_ire
    Registered Users Posts: 1,894 ✭✭✭dreamer_ire


    Johnnymcg wrote: »
    No - it doesn't

    Agree completely with Johnny, I know many gay parents who became parents in heterosexual relationships who for a variety of reasons did not "come out" until later. Some of these parents are now single, some are in long term relationships. Liam, in the cases where a parent's gay partner wants to adopt a child and the other biological partner has no objections would you be opposed to this?

    On your own question I favour choice in schooling, and I would choose what is considered to be the best school for the particular child. I'm not sure whether it's co-ed or not would be high on my list of criteria. As a resident of Northern Ireland I would, for example, choose a good performing grammar school for an acedemic child. Similarly I would select a good performing secondary school for a child whose talents lie outside acedemia. However in saying that I'm not a parent, and perhaps not being a parent I don't see the analogy as a good one. Same sex couples are not about "emersing" a child in a single gender environment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    LookingFor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Of course :rolleyes:, but this in itself shouldn't be offered to individuals or unsuitable couples, which means its essentially the same discussion.

    You cannot stop lesbians (or indeed gay men with a surrogate) having children.

    A lesbian doesn't even need the services of professionals, nor to have sex with a man, in order to inseminate herself. Ditto for the surrogate of a male gay couple. I shan't get into details, but use your imagination.

    There are already children here in Ireland being raised by two men or two women where only one parent has legal rights or responsibilities towards the child. It's been the case for a long time too, it's not something new, and there are such kids raised to maturity campaigning for these adoption rights alongside their parents now. Would you really tell those children that their other parent who has raised them should not be allowed to adopt them?


  • Options
    #83
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    dreamer_ire wrote: »
    Liam, in the cases where a parent's gay partner wants to adopt a child and the other biological partner has no objections would you be opposed to this?

    So would I support someone who was living a lie for years adopting ? Not really, no.

    Also, the exception doesn't prove the rule; my whole point was that the phrase "full rights" is subjective.
    dreamer_ire wrote: »
    Same sex couples are not about "emersing" a child in a single gender environment.

    My point was that if someone favoured a same-sex school and was also gay, the child would have feck-all exposure to the opposite sex, and also the fact that the same-sex vs co-ed school preference is along the same lines in that there's no "proof" as such that it makes a better person.....which is the argument that people put forward for gay adoption - there's no proof that the child is worse off, but the argument is still put forward that co-ed means a more rounded result.


  • Options
    #84
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    LookingFor wrote: »
    You cannot stop lesbians (or indeed gay men with a surrogate) having children.

    You can't stop 16 or even 13-year-olds either, but it doesn't make it right.


  • Options
    #85
    LookingFor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    You can't stop 16 or even 13-year-olds either, but it doesn't make it right.

    Strawman arguments aside, you're ignoring the questions I've put to you. There's a reality out there you are closing your eyes to.

    You would tell such a child that there parents were not 'right' to have them and thus, no, they cannot be adopted by the second parent? Really?


  • Options
    #86
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    On a related note, I'd be curious whether those who "prefer" co-ed schools to single-sex schools would carry that preference across to parenting, where the claim that the mixed-sex experience was "better" and produced a better person seems to apply ?

    Do those in favour of gay parents think that co-ed schools are better ?

    And if so, is there an inherent contradiction in that standpoint ?

    Slightly odd question - I personally think a single-sex school is better, but wouldn't see the two as related. Parenting isn't really anything like schooling - the primary relationship for a child in school is with their peers, and parents are not peers, however much we might like to think we are from time to time.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #87
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Slightly odd question - I personally think a single-sex school is better, but wouldn't see the two as related.

    So where, in that scenario, would a girl adopted by a lesbian couple who was at an all-girl school get a male influence in her life ?


  • Options
    #88
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    So where, in that scenario, would a girl adopted by a lesbian couple who was at an all-girl school get a male influence in her life ?

    Why does she need one?

    (She does have the option of two grandfathers, though, as usual. Lesbians still have fathers.)

    interested,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #89
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    LookingFor wrote: »
    Strawman arguments aside

    I used the exact same phrasing that you did.

    LookingFor wrote: »
    , you're ignoring the questions I've put to you. There's a reality out there you are closing your eyes to.

    No, I'm not ignoring them.

    People who have children have responsibilities, and whether they are straight or gay they should, where possible, stay in the relationship in which they had the child.

    Life doesn't give us the ideal, but when we have the choice we should aim for it.

    I've already said that I would not allow a single person to adopt because it - equally - is not the ideal.
    LookingFor wrote: »
    You would tell such a child that there parents were not 'right' to have them and thus, no, they cannot be adopted by the second parent? Really?

    Show me where I said that ? You might be doing a bit of extrapolating there.

    Sorry, but I cannot understand the implied fluidity in sexuality (particularly as we are regularly told that people are born with it), and while no amount of reverse pressure would ever make me have a relationship with, sleep with, have sex with and go on to have a child with (that's 4 serious levels of "it'll never happen") someone of the same sex. I would easily stay single - end of story.

    Those who were pressured into it have to accept that it's not the ideal. But it was their choice.

    Personally, I would preferably allow the non-gay parent to adopt the child within their new relationship, but it would need to be looked at carefully.

    Likewise, if the only option was a single parent adoption vs a different adoption, it would need to be looked at carefully.

    You are equating an existing scenario trying to imply that it's the norm or the ideal; what I am saying is that this is not related to someone's "rights", and that someone cannot look at the attempts to handle a messy undesirable situation and superimpose it on to unrelated scenarios as a "right".


  • Options
    #90
    LookingFor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    So where, in that scenario, would a girl adopted by a lesbian couple who was at an all-girl school get a male influence in her life ?

    Uncles, cousins, friends, teachers, neighbours etc. etc. etc.

    If you think of all the people a child interacts with, the parents and peers at school are but a subset. It's practically impossible to create the massive gender imbalance in a child's circle of contact that you're suggesting.

    And again, this isn't theory anyway. This has been reality for a long time and has been well studied at this stage - and the consensus is that the children of these families are as well adjusted and socially competent as those whose parents are male and female. You're arguing and presenting concerns against it as if this is some untested theoretical model of the family.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    LookingFor wrote: »
    If you think of all the people a child interacts with, the parents and peers at school are but a subset.

    "But a subset" ??? They are the two primary and most influential subsets.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement