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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

135678

Comments

  • #102
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    MultiUmm wrote: »
    I initially asked that people left adoption as a seperate issue, but it became a topic of discussion fairly quickly.
    Problem is that technically, if gay couples were given the same marriage rights as straight couples, they should be legally allowed to adopt.


    Hi Multium,
    I find that our poliTHICKens can usually find a way to legislate how they like:eek: eg: neice 2 and coming shortly to a polling booth near you Lisbon 2.they could if they wanted to come up with a wording that allows gay marriage but forbids gay couples adopting.

    I am no legal expert so i do not know for sure if gay marriage would require just Dail legislation or a referendem?

    i think a referendem on gay marriage would be defeated at present though.


  • #103
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    Cjoe wrote: »
    No its not. The legislation is all over the place and contradicts itself.
    You should absolutley be able to leave the child with your husband if you already have one. Its in the childs interests.

    I would yes definetly. But as I said priority should go to hetrosexual couples once they are suitable.

    No im not. Im saying as a person who wants to be a parent are you making the best descion for the child you may adopt? Weigh up the pros and cons for the child. The potential abuse they may get for being an adoptive child of a homosexual couple, their upbringing without a male or female figure in their family life. As I said already every couple (hetrosexual and homosexual) should think about the child first. Can you give the child as healthy a life in every aspect as possible.

    Sure you can argue for an against there is plenty of information to back up both claims. I beileve it is healthier though to have a traditional family unit.
    To not have a father or mother means you are missing out on one or the other expierence. It might not be detremental to your life in the future but in general it is positive expierence and one which is invaluable. Having a decent mother and father means you have expierence of both male and female role models. It is obviously a good thing expierence for later life.
    Aard wrote: »
    Could you please address the points I've made, before bringing new information into the discussion.

    I have. Each Paragraph has addressed each point you made. Sorry I forgot to multi quote it


  • #104
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think we have established if it is about equality. It is only about equality if you consider a relationship between a man and a woman to be the same thing as two of the same gender. I personally don't.

    Fair enough, that's your opinion.

    It is an extremely insulting and condescending attitude regarding the personal lives of people you don't know. When you can come up with a reason why the love and parental urges a man and a woman feel is intrinsically superior to the love and parental urges a gay couple feel, get back to me.

    Do you wonder why some posters in A&A get so angry at you?


  • #105
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    they could if they wanted to come up with a wording that allows gay marriage but forbids gay couples adopting.


    They could well do that, and I for one would be happy to settle with it for the time being. Gay rights have only come very gradually in this country, in 1993 when homosexuality was legalised the idea of gays marrying or even CP would have been unthinkable.

    I am no legal expert so i do not know for sure if gay marriage would require just Dail legislation or a referendem?


    I'm not entirely sure on this so I'll have to look into it, but under the Irish Constitution the right to marry is preserved for a man and a woman. So a referendum would be required to leagalise it.


    i think a referendem on gay marriage would be defeated at present though.


    Maybe, depending on how well each side that was for and against conveyed their points. Then again, Ireland still has a large rural population who would be quite uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage. They could have a "silent majority".


  • #106
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Fair enough, that's your opinion.

    It is an extremely insulting and condescending attitude regarding the personal lives of people you don't know. When you can come up with a reason why the love and parental urges a man and a woman feel is intrinsically superior to the love and parental urges a gay couple feel, get back to me.

    Do you wonder why some posters in A&A get so angry at you?

    Being true to your opinion sometimes rubs people up the wrong way. However, given my beliefs on the importance of the family, it's not something I feel I can retract.

    I have no issue with homosexual people entering into relationships with each other, it is when children are involved where concerns are raised for me and for quite a lot of other people.

    Get as angry as you like. We have to eventually learn to tolerate that people will differ on this issue in the end. I welcome your advocacy on the issue, it is clear that this is something you care a lot about. It's an issue that I care a lot about, albeit for different reasons. However, ignoring legitimate concerns isn't going to make the opposition disappear.

    Tolerance doesn't mean getting angry at people because they disagree with you. It's strange how the liberal consensus is starting to make it seem that way though.


  • #107
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think we have established if it is about equality. It is only about equality if you consider a relationship between a man and a woman to be the same thing as two of the same gender. I personally don't.
    So we have finally gotten to the crux of the problem!


    What are your reasons for believing that the two relationships are not equal? Is it anything beyond religious conditioning?


  • #108
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    Why not? They educate about hetersexuality. Not educating it doesn't mean that it will go away.
    Becuase it is not the states job to educate children on the issue of homosexuality. I believe that is a parents job
    Aard wrote: »
    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.
    So you are saying that the State must steep in to educate children "properly" because the childs natural parent isn't ?
    Don't you see how wrong that sounds ?


  • #109
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I've outlined the 2 differences above.


  • #110
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    anoisaris wrote: »
    And what if your future children or their peers are homosexual?
    What if they are ? That is a non issue.
    anoisaris wrote: »
    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).
    That's funny, I don't remember my teacher talling me that all children have to marry someone of the opposite sex.


  • #111
    answer me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭answer me


    Everyone should have equal rights so i don't understand why gay marriage can not happen:confused::confused::confused:

    :mad::(


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    GeeNorm
    Registered Users Posts: 162 ✭✭GeeNorm


    People will approve/disapprove based on whatever beliefs they have but IMO the government will simply not want to jeopardise the inheritance tax revenue stream.

    The level of assets passed between gay partners on death is probably not huge, but it is (with small exemptions) taxed at 25%.

    The danger is that if gay couples are granted spouse exemption, then other people could be/feel entitled to it e.g. two old bachelors living together. Worst case scenario from a revenue point of view is that eventually every person who dies is then allowed nominate one person to inherit their estate tax free.


  • #113
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I sometimes wish the Government would just have a referendum on this so that we could soldify Irish opinion on the matter.

    If a majority voted yes, I would have to accept the democratic mandate was to change civil marriage. If the majority voted no, people would have expressed the view that civil partnerships are adequate, and that LGBT couples should negotiate to improve the rights offered to them under civil partnerships rather than redefining marriage.


  • #114
    giddybootz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 867 ✭✭✭giddybootz


    IMO it boils down to a very simple sentance: Everyone, regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, favourite colour etc should be entitled to equal rights...be it marriage, adoption, education, employment etc.


    To say that 'oh maybe we should let the gays marry but not adopt because their children might get teased' is a joke.

    What about kids who get teased because daddy is a binman? Perhaps binmen should not be allowed have children.

    What about kids who get teased because mummy has a disability? Perhaps those with disabilitys should not be allowed have children.

    I could go on with a million differant examples but I am sure you get my point. Children tease eachother...it is sad but true...and having gay parents is just one of a million reasons they could get teased.


  • #115
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    giddyboots, everyone already has the right to get married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The issue here isn't the right to marriage, but to redefine marriage.


  • #116
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    giddybootz wrote: »
    IMO it boils down to a very simple sentance: Everyone, regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, favourite colour etc should be entitled to equal rights...be it marriage, adoption, education, employment etc.


    To say that 'oh maybe we should let the gays marry but not adopt because their children might get teased' is a joke.

    What about kids who get teased because daddy is a binman? Perhaps binmen should not be allowed have children.

    What about kids who get teased because mummy has a disability? Perhaps those with disabilitys should not be allowed have children.

    I could go on with a million differant examples but I am sure you get my point. Children tease eachother...it is sad but true...and having gay parents is just one of a million reasons they could get teased.

    And what about the "traditional family" arguement? Do you think this is not an issue?


  • #117
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Becuase it is not the states job to educate children on the issue of homosexuality. I believe that is a parents job
    But why though? Do you believe that your child will become homosexual, just because they're told about it in school? What about gay children who - in the absence of school-provided education - grow up to believe that their sexual orientation makes them evil? Should those children not be taught that they are normal like everybody else? And don't say that their parents can do that job, because there are people out there who will tell their gay children that homosexuality is evil.


  • #118
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    So you are saying that the State must steep in to educate children "properly" because the childs natural parent isn't ?
    Don't you see how wrong that sounds ?
    That doesn't sound wrong to me at all; there will be people who "educate" their children incorrectly on the matter.


  • #119
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The issue here isn't the right to marriage, but to redefine marriage.
    Please see this post: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61659805&postcount=64. The constitution doesn't define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. If the issue here is about, as you say, the legal definition of marriage, then your argument falls apart.


  • #120
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    answer me wrote: »
    Everyone should have equal rights so i don't understand why gay marriage can not happen
    Everybody does have the ability* to marry people of the opposite sex.
    Gay perople are not being denied that ability.


    *I say ability not right because marriage is not a right.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Aard wrote: »
    Please see this post: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61659805&postcount=64. The constitution doesn't define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. If the issue here is about, as you say, the legal definition of marriage, then your argument falls apart.

    The Irish marriage law currently does. The Constitution is not the only law in Ireland. Even if we are dealing with the Irish constitution, the High Court have ruled that the original intention of De Valera was to promote traditional marriage.
    In a December 2006 judgement in the 'KAL Case' (see below), the Irish High Court held that marriage as defined in the Irish Constitution was between a man and a woman and that there was no breach of rights in the refusal of the Revenue Commissioners to recognise foreign same-sex marriages.

    This is the same court that rules on the interpretation of the Constitution.


  • #122
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    Please see this post: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61659805&postcount=64. The constitution doesn't define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. If the issue here is about, as you say, the legal definition of marriage, then your argument falls apart.
    See here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055623512
    A referendum is needed to redefine marriage as stated in the constitution.


  • #123
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I think like a lot of things in a country as deeply entrenched in religion as Ireland has been, the definitions of many things need to be updated. Marriage is certainly one of them. It's appalling that a couple of teenagers, or a mail order bride, or sugar daddy have a right to something purely based on the fact that the union consists of a man & a woman - despite the obvious moral questionableness of their coupling and yet moral objections are always trotted out at the first sign of a discussion on gay marriage.

    The adoption process is long & laborious, as well it should be. It's there to protect children from being adopted into families that cannot offer a child all that they need. I think it's the place of the adoption agencies or boards to decide who falls into that category, not for a country to put a blanket ban in place. As an adoptee, I can assure you - given the choice between long term care & two loving mums or dads, it's a no contest & to suggest otherwise is putting your own prejudices before the best interest of a child, in spite of any "for their sake" argument you may wish to convince yourself of.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    So you are saying that the State must steep in to educate children "properly" because the childs natural parent isn't ?
    Don't you see how wrong that sounds ?

    In a country only too happy to have by far the majority of state sponsored schools governed by religious establishments legally teaching my children about an invisible being who cannot be verified, it's quite staggering how many people take offence at the teaching of an act that undeniably happens across the world. :confused:


  • #124
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Being true to your opinion sometimes rubs people up the wrong way. However, given my beliefs on the importance of the family, it's not something I feel I can retract.

    I have no issue with homosexual people entering into relationships with each other, it is when children are involved where concerns are raised for me and for quite a lot of other people.
    And that is insulting, because no matter how you dress it up it comes down to saying you think there is something wrong with homosexuals, that there is something about homosexuals that is harmful to children. Did you know that I was adopted by a single mother? Statistically, I was at a very large disadvantage. If it was about the children you'd be calling for a ban on single-parent families.
    Get as angry as you like.
    I wasn't referring to myself.
    Tolerance doesn't mean getting angry at people because they disagree with you. It's strange how the liberal consensus is starting to make it seem that way though.
    I'm intolerant of intolerance. I also don't like the term tolerance. To tolerate something is to say "well if you must". I tolerate religion, I tolerate taxes, I tolerate children on the bus, I tolerate pain when I've fallen, but it doesn't mean I like them. Please, don't try to paint yourself as a tolerant person. If you were, you'd support gay rights despite your reservations.

    Edit:
    Me wrote:
    I'm intolerant of intolerance

    Actually was wrong when I said that; by my own definition I'm tolerant of intolerance.


  • #125
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »

    In a country only too happy to have by far the majority of state sponsored schools governed by religious establishments legally teaching my children about an invisible being who cannot be verified, it's quite staggering how many people take offence at the teaching of an act that undeniably happens across the world. :confused:
    Looks like somebodies side stepping the issue, let's try again shall we ?


  • #126
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I think his argument is legitimate; being passive-aggressive about it isn't helping anybody.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    I think his argument is legitimate; being passive-aggressive about it isn't helping anybody.
    His arguement against the state instilling thoughts about homosexuals into the minds of young children boils down to "sure ye let the church do it.". Not what I would consider an adult position.


  • #128
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Why not? They're both just differences in ideals about what our children should or should not be taught.


  • #129
    Harmony Plain Ax
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Harmony Plain Ax


    codrulz wrote: »
    marraige is between a man and woman

    Yes. That's what it currently is, congratulations for stating the obvious.


  • #130
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Firstly, I'm not a he.

    Second of all, the point I was making is that it is a silly argument to object to the education system teaching children about real world issues like sex, gay or otherwise, when it's currently teaching them about all manner of things that parents have differing views on, faiths, etc. At the end of the day parents can tell their children about their views, even lean on their children to share them but I think it's very important for the sake of the childs' education (indeed their well being and sense of self if they are gay) to have an unprejudiced source of information available to them. I don't think hiding behind a cloak of ignorance & calling it protection is a very clever thing to do. If my children are gay, I hope they don't have to go through a state sponsored school system that thinks a family unit that doesn't involve a mother & father is substandard and only heterosexual relationships are worth talking about. :(


  • #131
    bp1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 248 ✭✭bp1989


    What annoys me is that any two idiots, as long as they're male and female, can together raise a child. But two loving men or women, who are willing to take the time to adopt a child, aren't allowed the same chance?

    I think the true victims here are the children. Those who don't agree with same sex couples raising children likely have no proof behind their prejudice. They're just stuck in their ways.

    It's not fair that you're disallowed from having the same rights as someone else over something you have absoloutely no control over. Can you control who you're attracted to? No way. It's like you're being punished in advance (ie before being born), and then punished again for being punished in the first place. It's complete bull****.

    I'm gay and I know I'd make a damn better father than I see some acquaintences of mine being. I know rough kids who have had kids themselves, and leave their child lying in their own filth all day. Children like these could have loving, caring homes if the nation wasn't so stubborn.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    His arguement against the state instilling thoughts about homosexuals into the minds of young children boils down to "sure ye let the church do it.". Not what I would consider an adult position.

    Educating on the fact that homosexuals exist is hardly "instilling thoughts about homosexuals". And I have already said before many gay people know they are gay when they are children. Why shouldn't a child know that relationships and family units are not all solely based on opposite sex couples? Wouldn't that education reduce the risk that a child of gay parents would be bullied as some of you seem concerned with that point?


  • #133
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    bp1989 wrote: »
    What annoys me is that any two idiots, as long as they're male and female, can together raise a child. But two loving men or women, who are willing to take the time to adopt a child, aren't allowed the same chance?
    No matter what way you term it Homosexual marriage will require a referendum, there is not getting around that fact.
    bp1989 wrote: »
    I think the true victims here are the children. Those who don't agree with same sex couples raising children likely have no proof behind their prejudice. They're just stuck in their ways.
    Do you have any proof that Same sex couples can raise a child as effectively as an opposite sex couple ? Do you think that prehaps you are just stuck in your way ?
    bp1989 wrote: »
    It's not fair that you're disallowed from having the same rights as someone else over something you have absoloutely no control over. Can you control who you're attracted to? No way. It's like you're being punished in advance (ie before being born), and then punished again for being punished in the first place. It's complete bull****.
    In what way are you being discriminated against ? You have exactly the same rights when it comes to marraige as me. The thing is you are not happy with your current ability to marry and want to re-define it.
    Please don't play as a victim when you aren't one.
    bp1989 wrote: »
    I'm gay and I know I'd make a damn better father than I see some acquaintences of mine being. I know rough kids who have had kids themselves, and leave their child lying in their own filth all day. Children like these could have loving, caring homes if the nation wasn't so stubborn.
    Are you saying that all gay people are better parents then straight people or that all straight are worse parents then gay people ?
    I'm confused. :confused:


  • #134
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    anoisaris wrote: »
    Educating on the fact that homosexuals exist is hardly "instilling thoughts about homosexuals".
    Yes it is, and I've already made clear what I think about the state taking the parents role to "educate" children on adult relationships.
    [/QUOTE]
    anoisaris wrote: »
    And I have already said before many gay people know they are gay when they are children. Why shouldn't a child know that relationships and family units are not all solely based on opposite sex couples? Wouldn't that education reduce the risk that a child of gay parents would be bullied as some of you seem concerned with that point?
    Just because you said it doesn't make it true, there is still no certain evidence that homosexuality is "nature" rather than "nurture".


  • #135
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,551 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    codrulz wrote: »
    were not scared of gay marraige we think its wrong first you want the same rights as us:eek: now you want kids whats next you want a state pension i mean get a life marraige is between a man and woman so get real

    Eh what:confused:

    Anybody with enough prsi contributions and who are 66 years of age can get a state pension, irrespective of sexuality.


  • #136
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Yes it is, and I've already made clear what I think about the state taking the parents role to "educate" children on adult relationships.

    Just because you said it doesn't make it true, there is still no certain evidence that homosexuality is "nature" rather than "nurture".[/



    I don't care what you think of the nature nuture debate. I am speaking from my own and friends experiences, we knew in primary school we were gay. I don't need evidence I was gay from birth. You continue to miss the point that educating children on the existence of homosexuals does not have to be an education on adult relationships.


  • #137
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Just because you said it doesn't make it true, there is still no certain evidence that homosexuality is "nature" rather than "nurture".
    So you think you can eradicate homosexuality just by not teaching of its existence in schools? That if you ignore it, it will just go away?


  • #138
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    anoisaris wrote: »
    I don't care what you think of the nature nuture debate. I am speaking from my own and friends experiences we knew in primary school we were gay I don't need evidence I was gay from birth. You continue to miss the point that educating children on the existence of homosexuals does not have to be an education on adult relationships.
    And you don't seem to under stand discussion on the interwebz, you can't use your own personal experiences as evidence in a discussion.
    Basically what your arguement boils down to is "stuff the scientists who are gathering evidence on the cause of homosexuality, I'm gay because of nature 'cos I say so."
    And liberals accuse us of being ignorant...


  • #139
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    So you think you can eradicate homosexuality just by not teaching of its existence in schools? That if you ignore it, it will just go away?
    I don't remember saying that.


  • #140
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Just because you said it doesn't make it true, there is still no certain evidence that homosexuality is "nature" rather than "nurture".

    Wha?! :eek: Now people are nurturing their children to be gay? What does that even mean, that there would be no gay people if we just stop talking about it? That's one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard! :pac:


  • #141
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    In what way are you being discriminated against ? You have exactly the same rights when it comes to marraige as me. The thing is you are not happy with your current ability to marry and want to re-define it.
    Please don't play as a victim when you aren't one.
    We are victims: we can't marry those we love; nor can two same-sex parents both be the legal guardian of a child they have raised together.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Are you saying that all gay people are better parents then straight people or that all straight are worse parents then gay people ?
    I'm confused. :confused:
    That's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that there are some gay people who would make better parents than some straight people. The fact is that those straight people can have and be the legal guardian of children, whereas those gay people cannot.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I don't remember saying that.
    Then why did you say, "there is still no certain evidence that homosexuality is "nature" rather than "nurture"?


  • #143
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    And you don't seem to under stand discussion on the interwebz, you can't use your own personal experiences as evidence in a discussion.
    Basically what your arguement boils down to is "stuff the scientists who are gathering evidence on the cause of homosexuality, I'm gay because of nature 'cos I say so."
    And liberals accuse us of being ignorant...

    Of course you can use personal experience in discussion, it's hardly academic research. In fact I believe you based your notions of what it must be like to be gay on the experiences of your gay friend in previous discussions. I am gay and have been all my life as far back as I remember, I am evidence such a thing as a gay child exists (as are my friends). I am not saying all gay people identify as being gay from birth or at a young age simply that I knew in primary school as do others.


  • #144
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Wha?! :eek: Now people are nurturing their children to be gay? What does that even mean, that there would be no gay people if we just stop talking about it? That's one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard! :pac:
    Well get used to it. Here's the wikipedia link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation


  • #145
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,551 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »

    In what way are you being discriminated against ? You have exactly the same rights when it comes to marraige as me. The thing is you are not happy with your current ability to marry and want to re-define it.
    Please don't play as a victim when you aren't one.


    Civil Partnership denies parents the right to make educational and medical decisions for their children; it denies them the right to visit their children in hospital; it denies them custody and visitation should the adult relationship break down.
    It denies children of gay parents the right to maintenance, hospital visits and inheritance from their parents; in the tragic event of a biological parent dying, a child could end up in State care as his second mum or dad is seen as a legal stranger; as adults it can deny them the right to make vital medical decisions for elderly or infirm parents.

    In practical terms, the Civil Partnership proposal contains no details on the tax and social welfare benefits to be granted to gay and lesbian couples.
    These will be dealt with in separate pieces of law. We have no way of knowing if these will be the same as, or different from those granted to straight couples. Will gay couples have to pay more tax? Will they be included in Social Welfare benefits like pension transfer? Considering the fact that the Social Welfare code has already been amended once (in 2005) to explicitly exclude gay couples from benefits granted to straight married and unmarried couples, there is little reason to hope the Government will treat gay couples equally if and when the partnership scheme becomes law.

    From http://lgbtnoise.ie/?page_id=235

    Really, it still seems like an agreement to keep 2nd class people happy. Also, in the case of children already fostered or cohabitating with gay couples, it offers them no rights if one of the partners in the couple dies. The child will be snatched from them because of the traditionalist view of family in ireland.


  • #146
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    We are victims: we can't marry those we love; nor can two same-sex parents both be the legal guardian of a child they have raised together.
    You are not a victim, you have the exact same rights as me. The fact that you are in love with men does not affect those rights.
    Aard wrote: »
    That's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that there are some gay people who would make better parents than some straight people. The fact is that those straight people can have and be the legal guardian of children, whereas those gay people cannot.
    Well then he should have said it that way, though even the above remark is still controversial.


  • #147
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    Then why did you say, "there is still no certain evidence that homosexuality is "nature" rather than "nurture"?
    Because it isn't.


  • #148
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    jaffa20: What is so wrong with the idea of lobbying for better civil partnership rights instead of attempting to redefine marriage? If there is a problem with the act, lobbying for a change in the act would seem to make sense.


  • #149
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Well get used to it. Here's the wikipedia link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation

    Huh?
    The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that environment is probably one of several causes of sexual orientation.[1][4]

    Results from a 2008 twin study were consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[2]

    Not sure how that bolsters your argument, tbh. :confused:


  • #150
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Because it isn't.
    But in the context that you said it, there was no precedent for it. The only conclusion I can draw is that you believe that by ignoring homosexuality, it will go away.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    jaffa20: What is so wrong with the idea of lobbying for better civil partnership rights instead of attempting to redefine marriage? If there is a problem with the act, lobbying for a change in the act would seem to make sense.

    What's wrong with redefining marriage for an Ireland of 2009?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement