Gay Rights

metrovelvet

Well, you were criticising my take on reality and my evidential support of that reality. So its as relevant as your criticism is.

Annasopra

New York ain't Dublin and there is probably a big cultural difference here where people would still have guilty catholic hang ups - So metro yes you may be right a lot of people in your social circles may act the way you have described but not all gay men do

The Corinthian

Johnnymcg wrote:

Are you reading the same thread as me

It would appear not, but if you would like to point out where your points are relevant to what has been discussed in this thread feel free to quote.

some of the points that I raised are not relevant to the thread but they were bought up by people other than me and I was answering them

Someone said that all homosexuals are paedophiles in this thread?

(if you read back through the thread you will see discussions about hate crime, promiscuity, paedophilia, the welath of gay men - I didn't just pick some issues from the air that people were not discussing)

Definitely not the same thread - as I said feel free to quote where you feel these items were raised.

I concentrated mainly answering reagrding the issue of men because there were mysandrist suggestions that men should not rear children but women/lesbians were ok

Again, where?

In citing the issue as regards hate crime I was responding to suggestions that there was little or no homophobic crime

Again, where?

This actually really doesn't make sense to me - If a man is married to a woman and abuses a boy - is he gay?

No, that’s not what is written there.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

So if I'm full of ****, where do you think I'm getting the **** from? Gay men.

freelancer, I dont like the way you are speaking to me, so until you change your aggressive and hostile tone I will be ignoring you.

And unless you come up with something better than the pathetic lurid gossip you're spouting here, I suspect everyone is going to start ignoring you....

Annasopra

So you're too lazy to read back through it all and want me to go looking for the stuff


Rsynnott read the thread and was able to notice what I was referring to

The Corinthian

Johnnymcg wrote:

So you're too lazy to read back through it all and want me to go looking for the stuff

It’s not laziness; it’s asking you to back up your assertions. I’m not going to second guess you where you interpreted something as meaning that “all gays are paedophiles”, when it probably didn’t. It’s not for me to back up your arguments, that’s your job.

Rsynnott read the thread and was able to notice what I was referring to

Then preach to the converted if you like, but don’t start blubbering when everyone else won’t take your word for it.

Annasopra

Then preach to the converted if you like, but don’t start blubbering when everyone else won’t take your word for it.

You are not "everyone else"

I will respond more later

The Corinthian

Johnnymcg wrote:

You are not "everyone else"

I’m not certain what you mean by this. I certainly can’t say I speak for "everyone else", but I do fall into that demographic. Did you mean something else?

The_Minister

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s not laziness; it’s asking you to back up your assertions. I’m not going to second guess you where you interpreted something as meaning that “all gays are paedophiles”, when it probably didn’t. It’s not for me to back up your arguments, that’s your job.

No-one said all, they just felt that the incidence was higher and the risk greater. Most of what he said popped up here and there.

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

4. There is no very little anti gay hate crime in Ireland
Do some googling you will find reports over the last few years of such crimes - Wait 6 weeks for the Johnny Hate Crime Survey to come out and then please tell me again that there is no anti-gay hate crime in Dublin or better still ask Finbarr Murphy. There are no statistics on this for various reasons but that does mean it doesn't happen - In my opinion a lot of this type of crime goes unreported because people are afraid to report or will not report attacks as homophobic

Any idea what the figures are like? High, low, negligable, epidemic?

Johnnymcg wrote:

5. Men can't look after children
Ah don't you just love the mysandry

I've always thought women tend to be better with children. I'm ok with kids and pretty good with babies but I think kids tend to attact to the mother more than the father.

The Corinthian

Firespinner wrote:

No-one said all, they just felt that the incidence was higher and the risk greater.

Actually, he said all - which was one of my points, that he was attempting to use a straw man argument. For example, I can argue that many, if not most, Americans are Caucasian. What he did was the equivalent of debunk the myth that “All Americans are Caucasian” - which other than being easily disprovable is also not what was actually said.

Most of what he said popped up here and there.

Are you saying then that most and not all has appeared in this thread? Especially if you consider that his interpretation of what may have popped up here and there may be radically different from what actually did pop up here and there.

Annasopra

.....

1. Gay people are all paedophiles

The largest number of paedophile attacks are men on boys.

No the problem is that a larger percentage rape children, and they want to adopt children. (Remember they will likely be meeting many more gays than a normal child)

I already said you cannot use children to make a social point, especially by endangering them even if it is to combat prejudice. Few people care if gays visit each other in hospital or leave the house to each other, but you cannot expose children to danger. No-one has a right to a child.

imright wrote:

Gays shouldnt be let any where near children

You wouldnt let a Gay man look after animals?
You wouldnt let fat people look after your plate of burgers would you?
So we shouldnt trust gays with kids...end of story

I have talked to gays who have said that this is basically it. I didn't mean in front of the children (any set of parents would cause a bucket of trauma with that), but that since statistically most attacks are men on boys, then even if one says that paedos and gays are two seperate sexualities, you have doubled that childs risk.

Paedophilia is a separate sexual identity, your insistence that there are "gay" paedophiles who have sex with boys, and "straight" paedophiles who have sex with girls is both tedious and abhorant.

There is little evidence to say that they are seperate

.

3. Gay people would warp/harm children if they reared them

declanoneill wrote:

Children should never be allowed to be placed in the care of a person or people that would result in their warping as they got older

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13950130.htm

Sifo wrote:

yeah they should have the same rights.. Although i dont believe people in same sex a marriages should raise a family. I think it could have a negative effect on the child. A child should never be without a mother. In some cases this cannot be helped orphans etc. but one father is enough...

You cannot put a child through trauma to prove a political point. The fact that so many people support this proves they are unfit to be parents.

I do have gay friends and we have discussed our views. Most said that gay adoption would put children at risk and needs to wait for a while, after parterships come in when society has changed more. (Admittadly one took Freelancers line that bastards should not be given into). What is the problem with saying "the gays" when that is who you are talking about? As you may guess I found considerably less agreement on the paedophile thing, but that does not mean we stop being friends. They know I do not think that they in particular are paedophiles and face-to-face it is easier to say in a non-offensive way and to explain my stance. Remember a higher percentage are paedophiles (I can't see how straight guys could have sex with boys) but not all.
Oh and I'm 18

4. There is no very little anti gay hate crime in Ireland
Do some googling you will find reports over the last few years of such crimes - Wait 6 weeks for the Johnny Hate Crime Survey to come out and then please tell me again that there is no anti-gay hate crime in Dublin or better still ask Finbarr Murphy. There are no statistics on this for various reasons but that does mean it doesn't happen - In my opinion a lot of this type of crime goes unreported because people are afraid to report or will not report attacks as homophobic

I was under the impression that we had loads of these attacks.

Well what you don't know.....

Yes unfortunately they do happen and to a greater degree in "happy tolerance love and joy land" Northern Ireland.

But to suggest that these random infrequent assaults as justification to stop gay adoptions is scaremongering of the most inane and idiotic kind

And you've offered no evidence that there is a wave of gay bashing in ireland that justifies your hysteria.

No it suggests that you're making a mountain out of a molehill, earlier on this thread you guested there were loads of attacks, a scan on the web and on this site shows that aside from a couple of minor fights outside the george (again not an environment gay couples are going to bring their adopted children to) late at night this isn't the epidemic you claim it to be, and cannot be used as a reason to stop gay couples adopting

5. Men can't look after children

Still think straight couple is better, but if im being honest I don't mind lesbians adopting as much. Lesbians don't get beat up as much (reduceing that risk for the child) and women abuse less frequently so that danger is reduced

Its all about money

---

No they shouldnt because they as someone already metioned give that right when they chose their lifestyle and the fact of the matter they have a high disposable income. The main benefits homosexuals couples want is to have more money and in my opinion is based on their own greed so that money should be given to those who need it. Fair enough people may cheat the system but at the end of the day these people hav given birth and gone through the various aspects of raisng a family. Homosexuals can only have children either by articial insemination or adoption insemination may constitute childbirth but adoption is not and many female homosexuals dont wish to have children or are unable to. Therefore why should homosexual couples have such rights when they dont really deserve and only want such rights so they can more money. Jst to reply to the comment about bigotry and wotever else that is simply not true other wise the same wcould be said about every society on the planet that they are all bigots etc because taking it to its extreme every person would be seen as a bigot simply down to the way we see people and the judgements we make about them. Honour has nothing to do with homosexuality

---

Last edited by Kuz_3040 : 18-03-2006 at 15:28.

I haven't posted everything because it trakes time to trawl through 18 pages - Will come back to this

The Corinthian

Point by point:

1. No one, in any of the quotes you supplied, actually said that all gay men, let alone gay people are paedophiles.

2. You have not been able to find a quote to date.

3. Fair enough.

4. Fair enough. You didn’t really explain (or back up) what exactly you were saying about this though.

5. Fair enough. Still more a masculinist issue than an LGBT issue TBH.

6. Fair enough. First time I’ve heard that argument though.

Well, I stand corrected on most of those points then. Jury’s out on the second and not on the first.

Annasopra

Point 2

If you consider the theory that men are not monogamous beings then you have to consider what its like when two non monogamous beings are in a relationship who are also very very horny.

rsynnot you know gay men have olympic sex drives and that monogamy is far from de rigeur.

You know Im right about that.

Blluewolf - gay men will tell you the exact same thing as the guy in the article did.

Annasopra

I stand corrected on points 1 and 2 - I may have been wrong in using the words "all"

Point 4 - people were discussing anti-gay hate crime and saying there were no statistics - I was merely responding in this context

Point 5 - I was mainly responding to this

Personally, Im not comfortable with gay men adopting. They are after all still men. I would be more comfortable with lesbians raising my kid.

Our concern should be the well being of the children. Considering the illegal sex child ring in south east asia there is no way I would endorce gay men adopting legally.

I should also add or single straight men.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

Well, I stand corrected on most of those points then. Jury’s out on the second and not on the first.

Johnnymcg wrote:

I stand corrected on points 1 and 2 - I may have been wrong in using the words "all"

Well, I'm glad that's all thrashed out.

We can now return you to your scheduled programming...

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Any idea what the figures are like? High, low, negligable, epidemic?

Keep digging Firespinner......:rolleyes:

I've always thought women tend to be better with children. I'm ok with kids and pretty good with babies but I think kids tend to attact to the mother more than the father.

Thats generally because mothers raise the children and are around them more.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

Keep digging Firespinner......:rolleyes:

This has relevence to you as well. You maintain that the number of homophobic assaults is low, and the only evidence that you can use is that you haven't heard gay complainers talking about it. Surely you will want something more concrete to base your views on?
If this report is done well and is truely representative then it will settle the arguement of a large part of this thread, and I thought you would be at least interested in that. If the numbers turn out to be, in my estimation, low enough as to constitute no threat, then I will support civil partnership.

Annasopra

Firespinner wrote:

This has relevence to you as well. You maintain that the number of homophobic assaults is low, and the only evidence that you can use is that you haven't heard gay complainers talking about it. Surely you will want something more concrete to base your views on?
If this report is done well and is truely representative then it will settle the arguement of a large part of this thread, and I thought you would be at least interested in that. If the numbers turn out to be, in my estimation, low enough as to constitute no threat, then I will support civil partnership.

That is absolutely stupidly ridiculous - Civil Partnership/Civil Marriage rights are a COMPLETELY separate issue to anti-gay hate crime - Your argument is basically "give the gays civil partnership if they don't get beaten up but if they do don't give them anything" - Do you realise how completely and utterly stupid that argument sounds - I am frankly astounded at such a point

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

That is absolutely stupidly ridiculous - Civil Partnership/Civil Marriage rights are a COMPLETELY separate issue to anti-gay hate crime - Your argument is basically "give the gays civil partnership if they don't get beaten up but if they do don't give them anything" - Do you realise how completely and utterly stupid that argument sounds - I am frankly astounded at such a point

As I've said on this thread it is not a completely seperate issue, if the kids would be at risk from such violence.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

This has relevence to you as well. You maintain that the number of homophobic assaults is low, and the only evidence that you can use is that you haven't heard gay complainers talking about it. Surely you will want something more concrete to base your views on?

Granted yes, however the fact that no one is highlighting the issue, means it is essentially, a non issue, a straw man, an empty argument.

If this report is done well and is truely representative then it will settle the arguement of a large part of this thread, and I thought you would be at least interested in that.

Firespinner you've been clutching at straws, talking about your friends in "the gays" how "men limit sex" or absurdities about homosexuality. This is the last straw in your argument, and you've frantically struggled to find evidence to support it. Even if you could find evidence that this is such an issue, it does not prove children of homosexuals who adopt would be more likely to be abused.

Incidently has your friend in "the guards" who claims the george gets special protection ever got back to you about the protection for other gay establishments?

If the numbers turn out to be, in my estimation, low enough as to constitute no threat, then I will support civil partnership.

Firespinner wrote:

As I've said on this thread it is not a completely seperate issue, if the kids would be at risk from such violence.

First you claim you're in favour of civil partnerships, then you're in favour of civil partnerships provided homophobic violence isn't an issue, now we're back to the kids.

Make up your mind would you.....

Annasopra

As I've said on this thread it is not a completely seperate issue, if the kids would be at risk from such violence.

Just because you said the issues are not separate does not mean that you are right

Ok maybe you're confused and don't really know what you're talking about - Civil Partnership will not automatically confer the ability to adopt - In fact that is one of the major arguments for/against it

Whoever introduced the issue of adoption totallly confused Firespinner all together

Also - how do targeted attacks against gay people put children at risk - and what has that got to do with granting same sex couples partnership rights

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

Just because you said the issues are not separate does not mean that you are right

Ok maybe you're confused and don't really know what you're talking about - Civil Partnership will not automatically confer the ability to adopt - In fact that is one of the major arguments for/against it

Whoever introduced the issue of adoption totallly confused Firespinner all together

Also - how do targeted attacks against gay people put children at risk - and what has that got to do with granting same sex couples partnership rights

I said in a different part of the thread that I was for already civil partnerships without adoption.
I feel that the kids would get the **** kicked out of them in school and in life if they had gay parents.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I said in a different part of the thread that I was for already civil partnerships without adoption.
I feel that the kids would get the **** kicked out of them in school and in life if they had gay parents.

I'm glad you added feel there because you "feel" this without a shred of proof, and while ignoring reports about how the children raised by gay people suffer no adverse psychological problems, or are he victims of bullying.

Good for you to hold onto your "feelings" in the vaccum of evidence to support it and while ignoring the evidence that disputes it.

Annasopra

Firespinner wrote:

I said in a different part of the thread that I was for already civil partnerships without adoption.
I feel that the kids would get the **** kicked out of them in school and in life if they had gay parents.

so what if kids had tall parents or fat parents ?

Freelancer

Johnnymcg wrote:

so what if kids had tall parents or fat parents ?

Or racial minorities, or inter racial for that matter.

Nope hasn't sunk in with him.

Firespinner thinks that this is gay people trying to make a political point, as if any gay person who wants to start a family is doing it because
"yeah this'll piss off the moral majority"

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

so what if kids had tall parents or fat parents ?

I'm 6'4" - tall isn't that much of a problem.
I think (as I have said) that more people hate gays than hate fat people.

rsynnott

Firespinner wrote:

I'm 6'4" - tall isn't that much of a problem.
I think (as I have said) that more people hate gays than hate fat people.

How about children of interracial couples? Or interfaith? That used to be a big, shocking thing, you know. Most of the children seem to have survived.

Annasopra

Firespinner wrote:

I'm 6'4" - tall isn't that much of a problem.
I think (as I have said) that more people hate gays than hate fat people.

and? how is this an argument against adoption?

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

and? how is this an argument against adoption?

If the kids were going to get the **** kicked out of them to an extent that transcended normal bullying then that would constitute child endangerment and would be wrong. The child has the right to a good home, not the parents a right to a child.