Full rights for the LGBT community.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I used the exact same phrasing that you did.




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.



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".

Again, you're assuming as an ideal a heterosexual nuclear family, without having shown that that is the ideal. It may well be your ideal, but you need to go a way beyond that before such an ideal has any claim to normative status, because you haven't gone anywhere near showing that it's better for the child - and as is being repeatedly pointed out to you, this is an area where research has been done, and it doesn't support your position.

Why should society adopt your ideal as opposed to that of anyone else? Why is your ideal better for the child than mine?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would also add "open to a case-by-case evaluation of the best interests of the children from formerly non-gay relationships" (with a slight bias towards the non-gay parent)

a) All adoptions are done on a case by case basis.
b) One does not need to be straight to have children

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Sorry, this is an "assertion" that I cannot agree with.

I'm bisexual, go figure.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Conversely, why is the suggested replacement "ideal" better than the existing one, and why is it lumped in with "rights" rather than wants ?

Any time change is requested, it's those proposing it that need to convince society that the new way is better.

I'm not convinced.

Simple as that.

No, that won't do. You have people who want to adopt, and are not allowed - why do you get to deny them that right if you can't come up with a convincing reason for your position?

"It's always been done that way" isn't any reason at all, as we could quickly demonstrate by applying it to the way Fianna Fáil runs the country!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Strawmanning. This act is wrong whether or not its a lesbian. So quit pretending that I said anything along the lines of the question.

What? There's no strawman in what I said! You said:

"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."

So I said 1) there isn't always a relationship and 2) asked then if a lesbian got pregnant with the sperm of a man should thus form a relationship with that man and forget her 'real' partner. If not, what are you suggesting?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh - we're talking adult children now ? Since when ?

Not exclusively, but I've referenced children who've reached maturity going back a number of posts now.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In which case there should be no children.

However there are and I'm asking what you say to those children.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Again, complete misrepresentation. The OTHER parent ALSO knows them and has raised them from birth.

I do not agree that ANYONE should inseminate themselves in the manner you suggest, whether single or gay.....it's wrong.



Incorrect.

SCENARIO 1:



SCENARIO 2:



So in one there was a relationship and the other there wasn't ?

I think there's a lot of crossed wires here.

My scenario involves a gay couple (a lesbian couple for the sake of saving typing) in a relationship where one of that couple conceives a child with the help of a sympathetic third party, where the child is subsequently raised by the gay couple as their own, and where there is no relationship between the child and 'the sympathetic third party'. One scenario where there is a relationship between two gay people but no relationship with the third party provider of sperm.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Which key scenario ? An existing parent, or a lesbian in a relationship that made herself pregnant via no sex or sex with a third party because it's her "right" ?

The above scenario.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It is by no means "the key", because adoption "rights" also include (for want of a better phrase) "third-party adoption".....

I think it is the most pressing motivation.

As I said earlier, though, yes, it does come down to two questions:

1) the status of children already being raised by gay couples wrt both parents

2) whether the pool of potential adoptive parents is enhanced or diminished by the addition of gay couples.

My posts most recently have focussed on 1).

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've already acknowledged that we evaluate the "was straight now am gay" scenarios that resulted in children (even though I can't understand this concept at all) as best possible

The above scenario is not a 'was straight now am gay' scenario. Again, a lesbian does not need to be straight to concieve a child - for example. Why you persist with this and suggest that a lesbian concieving a child undermines theories about the origin of sexuality is beyond me. Do I need to detail how it is possible for a lesbian to concieve a child without being straight? Or for a gay man to impregnate a surrogate without being straight? For either to do so without even having sex?

Yes yes, 'it's not right' etc. That's not my point, my point is that it happens, and there are kids and families out there formed thusly, and I'm asking you - again - what you say to those people wrt their rights and responsibilities among each other.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Quit personalising it. I don't get to deny anyone.

I'm not personalising it - I'm assuming that if the issue came to a vote, you would vote against allowing adoption by same-sex couples, and that in the absence of a vote, your opinion would be taken into account by our political representatives in any vote on the issue.

You would, therefore, in the starkest sense, be voting to deny people that right, or your representatives would be voting to do so in order to represent your wishes.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've already said that I'd accept if I couldn't adopt, as a single person, because I don't think it's right, and the fact that I apparently can is news to me.

Yes, the law gives you a freedom you wouldn't avail of, but that's not at issue here.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Who said it was a reason ?

It quite obviously isn't a case of "we've always done it that way" issue, since I'd prefer if single people weren't allowed to adopt, which they are.

And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt re the comment even tentatively comparing me to FF, even though it should be a red rag to a bull.....

You've offered "it's always been done that way" as a reason, by stating that the burden of proof is on those who want the law changed rather than on those who support the status quo. I don't see it that way - the status quo cannot be given the benefit of the doubt merely because it is the status quo. Therefore both sides of the debate need to argue their case without standing on the status quo as you've just done.

I'm not trying to bait you with the reference to Fianna Fáil - I'm only emphasising the fact that the status quo is no defence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for why I'd argue on keeping it, it is because I believe that there's a reason why nature needs 2 to create a child.....I might not know the reason, but it's there, and swans robbing children is not a convincing argument to convince me otherwise.

It might not be tangible, but I believe a child should ideally have two parents of opposite sex, and again ideally those should be the two who created them.

Grandparents are a different relationship.......again, many grandparents do help, or do even raise children if a parent dies......but again that is NOT the ideal to which you would deliberately introduce a child.

See, the thing is, this isn't an issue of whether homosexuals can have children but whether they should be entitled to adopt.
Your arguments focus on the children, so let me ask you this; consider a Chinese baby living in an orphanage. Which life is potentially better for the child.

a) to be adopted by a same-sex Irish couple, or
b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94trCVCrLo

I know I posted it earlier in the thread, but I seriously do not know how anyone can argue that such a life is better than being adopted by a same sex couple.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I offered it as a reason why the burden of proof is on those proposing the change.

I did not offer it as a reason that the status quo should remain.

There's a massive difference.

There's absolutely no difference at all! If I say the burden of proof is on those who wish the change the status quo, that is exactly the same thing as saying that the status quo can be assumed to be right without other defence than that it is the status quo.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for why I'd argue on keeping it, it is because I believe that there's a reason why nature needs 2 to create a child.....I might not know the reason, but it's there, and swans robbing children is not a convincing argument to convince me otherwise.

It might not be tangible, but I believe a child should ideally have two parents of opposite sex, and again ideally those should be the two who created them.

Grandparents are a different relationship.......again, many grandparents do help, or do even raise children if a parent dies......but again that is NOT the ideal to which you would deliberately introduce a child.

There is a reason why it takes two sexes to conceive a child, but it is a piece of evolutionary mechanics that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the raising of the child. In the vast majority of species, what parental care there is is provided by one parent only - nearly always the mother - despite the fact that in those species it also takes two to conceive.

Really, Liam, these are non-arguments. Why not just say "yes, it's a prejudice of mine" and be done with tying yourself in knots? As I said, I wouldn't deny anyone the right to have - and to retain - prejudices, but trying to justify them with mumbo-jumbo and weak sophistry is just daft. I really do mean that!

cordially even so,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So why did you say earlier that they did ?

Because I was mistaken.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If I hadn't challenged it, would you have corrected yourself ?

Unlikely no, but that's the great thing about debate and being intellectually honest and open to correction. It's great to have someone to pick you up on points, and to then go and do your own research and correct yourself. Even better when you can come back and admit it.

But is this relevant to our discussion..? What I 'got wrong' is immaterial to my point. That is, if this couple were heterosexual they would have a mechanism by which the step-parent could adopt the children of the biological parent, whereas gay couples remain excluded from this mechanism, thus it is an issue of 'rights', and the right to that mechanism.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Because "prejudice" is a biased term.

It's an opinion based on a number of non-tangible factors, I've admitted that.

But it's not a prejudice.

Because it is a prejudice - that is, your judgment of the matter has occurred prior to any argument about it, so you have pre-judged the argument. I feel the same way about a couple of things - gambling is a good example - I don't have a logical, thought-out and defensible position on them, but I have strong feelings on them. If you prefer to call it a gut feeling, call it that, but a prejudice is what it really is. I call mine prejudices, so I'm not applying some kind of double standard.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I mean, why is it OK for you to dismissively say ......



....... phrasing that as if it's not relevant ?

That's the same "evolutionary mechanics" that - as I said earlier - prevent us from living underwater, and no-one is claiming to be prejudiced by saying that it's probably not a good idea as a result.

Frankly, I get to say it because it's factually and scientifically the case. Conception through sex is a matter of evolutionary history that applies to nearly every form of multicellular life. There are algae with recognisable male and female 'genitalia' which require the input of both male and female members of the species in order to have offspring, but to argue that that has any relevance to quality of their parental care is rank and obvious nonsense.

It is equally rank nonsense for humans, unless you're going to abandon evolution and fall back on Adam and Eve - and that's why a lot of people with the same gut feelings as yourself end up falling back on such religious dogma, because it allows them to justify what can't be justified any other authoritative way.

cordially,
Scofflaw