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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

Options
12357…13

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #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:


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #125
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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 ?


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


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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.


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


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


  • Options
    #129
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    codrulz wrote: »
    marraige is between a man and woman

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


  • Options
    #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. :(


  • Options
    #131
    bp1989
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #133
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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:


  • Options
    #134
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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".


  • Options
    #135
    jaffa20
    Registered Users Posts: 4,509 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #137
    Aard
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #138
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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...


  • Options
    #139
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #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:


  • Options
    #141
    Aard
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #142
    Aard
    Registered Users 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"?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #144
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #145
    jaffa20
    Registered Users Posts: 4,509 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #146
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #147
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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:


  • Options
    #150
    Aard
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #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