Gay Rights

damien

This is not a LGBT specific issue. It should be in humanities. What do the LGB mods think?

patzer117

i'm liberal, i'm all for equal rights, equal pay, civil-partnerships, but i'm not for adoption of kids. I think the ideal situation for a kid is to have a mother and a father bringing it up and I feel that if given the choice only a woman and man, married, should be able to adopt. Yeah some situations like single mums are far worse, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. I think a child needs, ideally, a male and female role model in the form of their parents and the adoption agencies shouldn't settle for anything less.

i know this is going to offend people but sorry.

the reason i'm not for marriage is because the whole point of marraige is to raise kids, no other reason is given. so civil partnerships with equal footing tax breaks, inheritance allowances etc. are great, but not adoption. no siree...

Boston

el tel wrote:

I think all couples should have equal rights regardless however yesterday I heard the arguement that because gay couples chose a relationship that naturally precludes procreation they in effect are forfeiting their ability to have children and as such should not be allowed to adopt children. Anyone heard of this or any views?

Gay people can't have children with the people they love. This is the criteria behind many adoptions. should a filtie man or woman who chooses a partner who they can't have a child with, be equally blocked from adoption? I think the answer to that is obvious.

[QUOTE=LundiMardi]yes, it would be weird imo seeing a gay couple (men) raising a male child, don't ask me why, just the picture in my head looks weird!! heh...

But yeah sure why not![/QUOTE]

Why men as opposed to women? I understand where you're coming from, it's largely down to your own personal experience and how you view the world. My mother was definitely "the Parent" while my father stood a step to the side. So you might picture things with two people playing a role similiar to my fathers, and no one playing the "mammy role". But this doesn't really reflect how things actually are.

[QUOTE=declanoneill]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[/QUOTE]

Are the children or single parents any more/less warped? Or the children of creationists or cummunists... or what ever, design warped. If warped means the child won't see anything wrong with homosexuality, then wheres the problem.

[QUOTE=sinecurea]I think they should have every right a normal couple should have except for the fact that they should not be allowed to adopt a baby. This could only result in an unbalanced child.[/QUOTE]

There are numerous examples of where you're wrong.

[QUOTE=skywalker]True kids have to deal with all kinds of things, but should they be put into an environement which might well give them other things to contend with.[/QUOTE]

Well, quiet frankly, the sins or the father are often placed upon the son. Travellers should be stralised by you promess. Also whats with the WOW comment.

[QUOTE=Bambi]I dunno, if i was a nipper and i found out that i was being adopted by two gay daddies rather than a mammy/daddy arrangement i'd feel pretty ripped off[/QUOTE]
So you have no daddy or mamy, and someone offers you two, and you think you would be pissed off. You'd say"oh no, i don't want a loving home, i'll stay in care"

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Thats cause women limit sex. Men never tire. Ergo, in a gay relationship there would be no limits to times of sex.

Wow. Someone is a virgin. Mate people's sex drives are different at different times of their lives, the suggestion that men are beasts and that women "limit sex" is like something out of a sex education manual from the 30s.

No the problem is that a larger percentage rape children

A common piece of slander. Paedophalia is not the same as homosexuality and most intelligent thought on the matter is it is a different sexual orientation seperate from either homosexuality than hetrosexuality.

Truthfully I'd rather have a senstive well adjusted gay man confident and secure in his sexual idenity, teach and look over my children than some oppressed confused man in a black dress talking about sinful wicked ways of the flesh.

What do you base your - its natural - theorey? Certain cultures have far more gays than others eg Ancient Greece, Australia. Why would numbers differ between countries if not due to culture?

Certain cultures have a more tolerant and open attitude towards sexuality doesn't mean that theres more of them.

The fact that so many people support this proves they are unfit to be parents.

Lots of people supported apartheid and race discrimination, are you saying that their support makes these things right?

patzer119 wrote:

i'm liberal, i'm all for equal rights, equal pay, civil-partnerships, but i'm not for adoption of kids. I think the ideal situation for a kid is to have a mother and a father bringing it up and I feel that if given the choice only a woman and man, married, should be able to adopt. Yeah some situations like single mums are far worse, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. I think a child needs, ideally, a male and female role model in the form of their parents and the adoption agencies shouldn't settle for anything less.

Okay and again why Does a child need it? Many single parents raise their children to be healthy strong individuals, yet these children are missing either a mother or father? Your moot your own point.

Are you saying if the options are a gay couple with no criminal record successful, intelligent, well off, want to adopt, and a hetro married couple he's got a couple of DUIs and a drunk and disorderly on his sheet, and perhaps maybe some domestic violence, you'd put the child in with them over the gay couple?

Dudess

Firespinner wrote:

Thats cause women limit sex. Men never tire. Ergo, in a gay relationship there would be no limits to times of sex.

What sort of horse**** is that statement? I'm a woman and I'm not aware of myself "limiting" sex any more than a man would. So if women "limit" sex, you're not opposed to a lesbian couple adopting a child, is it? Just two gay men. You could at least keep your homophobia consistent.
In terms of the adoption issue, though, as long as attitudes prevail as they are, I don't see how it would work to a child's advantage. Say what you will: kids aren't as bad as we think they are, we shouldn't pander to the bigots. I agree, but at the end of the day, if the kid gets bullied because of attitudes, then maybe adoption by gay couples should be for another time when these attitudes change. I think they will. I know things are bad, but not as bad as they used to be. Our generation is a lot more tolerant than that of our parents.

rsynnott

el tel wrote:

I think all couples should have equal rights regardless however yesterday I heard the arguement that because gay couples chose a relationship that naturally precludes procreation they in effect are forfeiting their ability to have children and as such should not be allowed to adopt children. Anyone heard of this or any views?

Er, you're aware that we allow sterile people to adopt, right?

netwhizkid wrote:

Gay Couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt Children. It goes against Nature, Our Moral Catholic Ethos and against family values which we hold so dearly in Ireland. I am also against Civil-Partnerships, however Homosexuals should have have a facility where they can avail of services available to Married people, eg. any tax breaks based on marriage or "next-of-kin" rights should one member of the Homosexual relationship die entitling the other half of the relationship rights to their partners assets unless otherwise directed by the deceased partner.

First, please stop with the capitalisation. Second, what you have described is a civil partnership. What did you think a civil partnership was? And it goes against nature? How, precisely? Homosexual behaviour is rather common among most higher mammals. I have no interest in the morals of the Catholic church; we are, supposedly, a secular society.

Homosexuals should be glad they have made so much gains in recent years, up until recently Homosexuality was illegal afaik. As a society Ireland is not ready for full integration Homosexuals into Mainstream society just yet. Maybe in 50yrs.

Homosexuals should be glad? That they've been given basic civil rights? While denied some others? Er, okay. I am reminded of the rhetoric used in the US deep south to deny black people the vote after they were freed from slavery.

The Idea of Homosexuals adopting Children is terrible, Imagine the kids going to school, The psychological damage to Children would be awful. Children have grown up fine in families where one parent has died or left but Children need balance and most definitely not two mothers or fathers.

Indeed. Now, it has come to my attention that fat children are often bullied. The obvious solution is a nationwide culling of fat children, and sterilisation of fat people. No fat person should ever be allowed to adopt.

Do you see how silly that is?

sinecurea wrote:

But what sort of example is it going to set when the child starts to develop a sexual identity?

Ah, you're absolutely right. You know, when I was growing up, I heard Kenneth Williams on the radio, and I thought to myself "hmm, I'd better become a homosexual". Honestly, did you think that through at all?

netwhizkid wrote:

chances is that they too themselves may grow up Gay as a result of living in such a Gay Environment.

Er, evidence? (Incidentally, I am enjoying trying to picture what you might think a Gay Environment would be. In truth, it'd be rather similar to a Straight Environment, I think).

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

Oh, dear. I don't feel that people that stupid should be allowed to have children.

Trilla wrote:

I know people would love if all opened their eyes and except people for who and what they are, but when it goes against religions (which isnt that important) and nature (which is alot more important) its hard to except certain things. In an ideal world...............but its situations like these where its hard to explain to kids about gays, and the who what where and whys that go with them

Oh, another one. What's this "against nature" thing? Really? And as to explaining homosexuality to children, how, precisely, do you explain heterosexuality to children? Same thing!

Firespinner wrote:

something

Oh, I couldn't be bothered.

Firespinner wrote:

In my brothers primary school a Russian boy wrote "Leave me alone" on a piece of paper and stapled it to his forehead. Guess why?

So, would you allow foreign people to adopt? The aforementioned Fat Menace? People with prominent teeth? Where do we draw the line, and admit that kids will bully over any old thing?

patzer117 wrote:

the reason i'm not for marriage is because the whole point of marraige is to raise kids, no other reason is given. so civil partnerships with equal footing tax breaks, inheritance allowances etc. are great, but not adoption. no siree...

We do allow sterile people to marry, you know.

Freelancer

This kids will be bullied nonsense is just bull.

There was one poor bastard who started secondary school, in me back in the early 90s with the unfortunate name "Jason Donovan" (back in the old Scott n Charleen days) We ripped the piss out of him something rotten. One kid got laughed at cause his dad's name was Pascal. I talked too fast. Fat kids cause they were fat, nerds because they are nerds, etc etc........

In fact a Australian friend had a class mate who's mother was eaten by a shark. While cleaning barnacles off their boat, in front of her children; who were greeted on their first day back at school, by class mates running after them chanting the theme from Jaws.

Kids are a violent malevolent vicious tribe and will attack their classmates over the slightest thing, so suggesting that these kids need to be protected because their parents are gay and they may get teased is just bullshít.

Ag marbh

Only found this thread now and I am quite digusted that 1/5 of voters believed that homosexuals shoudn't have the same rights as hetrosexuals. It's hard to believe that it's the 21st century and we(society) still have some hangups regarding the subject. The latest display of worldwide hangups regarding the subject came around the film Brokeback mountain and the homophobes were out in full force. It was a brilliant movie so no need to be so insecure, homophobes.

rsynnott

Ag marbh wrote:

Only found this thread now and I am quite digusted that 1/5 of voters believed that homosexuals shoudn't have the same rights as hetrosexuals. It's hard to believe that it's the 21st century and we(society) still have some hangups regarding the subject. The latest display of worldwide hangups regarding the subject came around the film Brokeback mountain and the homophobes were out in full force. It was a brilliant movie so no need to be so insecure, homophobes.

I'd say it's more than a fifth in general society; it's just that people who use this sort of thing, and particularly Humanities and similar boards, are likely to be a bit smarter than average.

Ag marbh

rsynnott wrote:

I'd say it's more than a fifth in general society; it's just that people who use this sort of thing, and particularly Humanities and similar boards, are likely to be a bit smarter than average.

Edit - Rephrasing.

Yeah I would imagine more than 1/5. I spent last weekend down in Mullingar and my friends from the town told me that they're only beginning to accept the gay people within the community so I wonder what it's like in other country towns further down the country?

Dudess

Freelancer wrote:

This kids will be bullied nonsense is just bull.

There was one poor bastard who started secondary school, in me back in the early 90s with the unfortunate name "Jason Donovan" (back in the old Scott n Charleen days) We ripped the piss out of him something rotten. One kid got laughed at cause his dad's name was Pascal. I talked too fast. Fat kids cause they were fat, nerds because they are nerds, etc etc........

In fact a Australian friend had a class mate who's mother was eaten by a shark. While cleaning barnacles off their boat, in front of her children; who were greeted on their first day back at school, by class mates running after them chanting the theme from Jaws.

Kids are a violent malevolent vicious tribe and will attack their classmates over the slightest thing, so suggesting that these kids need to be protected because their parents are gay and they may get teased is just bullshít.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the stuff you mentioned like the Jason Donovan thing, the dad called Pascal thing, just sounds like a bit of mickey-taking. I don't think you can compare that with what homophobia can cause people to do. Kids aren't born with prejudice. They learn it from adults and, given the particularly violent stance some people take on homosexuality, I'd say what their kids learn from them could be pretty damn dangerous. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the examples you have cited seem to be the type of thing that bullyling kids are bound to forget about after a while, that they are just fodder for phases of bullying which will eventually peter out. I was nicknamed 'bag of bones' at school for being so skinny but it didn't damage me, and they gave up after a while. Kids who have been taught to hate gay people though, I don't know, but I'd say there's a likelihood they'll carry on the hating (possibly getting worse) as they get older, from primary to secondary school.

The OP

They should have the exact same rights, except having children (including adoption). I agree with 'El_tel': ..because gay couples choose a relationship that naturally precludes procreation, they in effect are forfeiting their ability to have children and as such should not be allowed to adopt.

I also agree with 'declanoneill': 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.

Since the poll options are poorly thought out, I had to vote No.

Dudess

Warping? Drumming hateful ideologies into a kid's head - now that's warping. Honestly, believing that kids raised by a same-sex couple could end up warped is Monty Python-esque in its stupidity.
By the way, I've more than a little inkling that imright, with his/her post on animals, burgers etc, was only taking the piss.

Ag marbh

The OP wrote:

They should have the exact same rights, except having children (including adoption). I agree with 'El_tel': ..because gay couples choose a relationship that naturally precludes procreation, they in effect are forfeiting their ability to have children and as such should not be allowed to adopt.

I also agree with 'declanoneill': 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.

Since the poll options are poorly thought out, I had to vote No.

Gay couples could bring a child up just aswell as any hetrosexual couple. If society didn't make such a big deal about it and let it pass by as normal noone would be hurt.

Freelancer

Dudess wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the stuff you mentioned like the Jason Donovan thing, the dad called Pascal thing, just sounds like a bit of mickey-taking. I don't think you can compare that with what homophobia can cause people to do. Kids aren't born with prejudice. They learn it from adults and, given the particularly violent stance some people take on homosexuality, I'd say what their kids learn from them could be pretty damn dangerous. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the examples you have cited seem to be the type of thing that bullyling kids are bound to forget about after a while, that they are just fodder for phases of bullying which will eventually peter out. I was nicknamed 'bag of bones' at school for being so skinny but it didn't damage me, and they gave up after a while. Kids who have been taught to hate gay people though, I don't know, but I'd say there's a likelihood they'll carry on the hating (possibly getting worse) as they get older, from primary to secondary school.

I worked on a news story last night, it involved transcribing death threats that an ordinary teenage girl got from her classmates. Don't tell me some people need a reason to hate, theres enough people with generic hate to go around.

Whats your point? Kids mimic racist comments from parents. Not to mention religious bigotry, should we make allowance for this?

Children will target any weakness or difference is my point, be it the weird food the islamic kids in my christian brother school ate (they had no choice re school), and we didn't even know what muslims were, they just looked funny and ate strange food.

Should we not allow gay people to adopt for no good reason other than some people won't like it? Not because its wrong but because there's prejudice against it? What message is that?

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

I worked on a news story last night, it involved transcribing death threats that an ordinary teenage girl got from her classmates. Don't tell me some people need a reason to hate, theres enough people with generic hate to go around.

Whats your point? Kids mimic racist comments from parents. Not to mention religious bigotry, should we make allowance for this?

Children will target any weakness or difference is my point, be it the weird food the islamic kids in my christian brother school ate (they had no choice re school), and we didn't even know what muslims were, they just looked funny and ate strange food.

Should we not allow gay people to adopt for no good reason other than some people won't like it? Not because its wrong but because there's prejudice against it? What message is that?

Think of gay bashings. The amount of damage done and violence would most likely be alot more than calling "fatty, fat, fat, fat...". We would not be talking about ordinary bullying here.

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.

Mia belle

I would agree with same sex couples adopting. My husband and I have adopted 3 times from Vietnam, Adoption is not for the faint hearted. It is a long and stressful process and only the strongest of relationships would see it through to the end. It took us 4 years to complete our 1st adoption and 3 for the 2nd and 3rd. There is no domestic adoption in Ireland at the moment. Couples adopt from abroad. The process is very intense which is as it should be. We are very open with our eldest daughter about her adoption, we realise we are not like every family in Ireland and we want our daughters to be proud of this, not embarassed or ashamed. I would imagine in a same sex family parents would also raise their adopted children to be proud of their differences, their parents relationship and their racial differences. Its only by teaching our children that not all families and situations are black and white that we can hope for people to be treated as equals. By not allowing same sex couples adopt, we are saying its wrong and this is so untrue. Many children are being raised by single parents with no ill effects, I know lots of kids being raised by mum and gran, fantastic. My own parents brought us up to respect others for who they are and also respect the choices they make. If a gay couple are in a strong loving relationship and complete the 4 years or so international adoption process takes, then they should not be denied the joy parenting an adoptive child brings, nor should the child be denied the chance of a loving home and bright future they would not get otherwise. Married couples and single people are treated no differently in adoption, you apply and wait to get processed, it should be the same for gay couples.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Think of gay bashings. The amount of damage done and violence would most likely be alot more than calling "fatty, fat, fat, fat...". We would not be talking about ordinary bullying here.

A minute ago you were making absurd claims about "women limiting sex" or paedophilia, (and god alone knows what the comment about "to cities" meant.

Where's your evidence that these children would recieve worse bullying?

And the obvious similarities between pro segeration groups about "how dangerous, it would be for intergration to occur.

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.

And no one has a right to limit the rights of gay couples to adopt because of netherthals like yourself might be outraged.

Are you really honestly suggesting that you would endanger the life of a child because she or he is adopted by gay couples?

God its been a while since I was on George's st are the regular mass stones still occuring at the George around closing time? :rolleyes:

Blub2k4

How the hell does a discussion about gay rights even end up with people discussing paedophilia? Are you really that ill-informed that you think there is a link between gay people and mental illness? Dark ages kinda stuff there, surely in this day and age you know gay people and are mature enough to make a call on the people.....sure there must be gay paedophiles, probably exactly the same amount proportionally to hetero cases, you cant equate normal sexuality with sickness....really really scary folks out there.

Oh the other thing, err you cant "catch gay" from association with homosexuals, but it might improve your dress sense and personal hygiene a bit

rsynnott

By the way, 'gays' is a somewhat pejorative term; please don't use it. Would you say 'blacks' or 'jews'? (Actually, a lot of people do say 'jews'; they probably shouldn't.)

patzer117

rsynnott wrote:

By the way, 'gays' is a somewhat pejorative term; please don't use it. Would you say 'blacks' or 'jews'? (Actually, a lot of people do say 'jews'; they probably shouldn't.)

Down with your political correctness. I think little people would prefer to be called little people rather than dwarves. And gay isn't a pejorative term.

To answer one or two of the questions, sterile people should be allowed to marry because their relationship doesn't exclude the possibility of procreation deliberately. Even if it did it is far too hard to determine whether someone is sterile or not before offering them marraige etc. with homosexuals (gays rsynnott), this isn't the case, it's clear they can't procreate.

Onto adoption, I'm of the opinion that drunks and criminals shouldn't be allowed to adopt too Freelancer, i think, ideally, only happily married heterosexual couples who can provide a good home for the child should be allowed to adopt. i simply feel that a child needs both a male and female role model in their lives. I know plenty of situations exist where this isn't the case, but i think that with adoption we have the chance to make it possible, so why settle for second best?


And lastly to deal with this issue of the poll, it's not a case of simply denying gay people equal rights - the entire question is very very misleading. Of course they shold have the same rights in every area imp, except for adoption. that's why i voted no. it's not that i have negative opinions against gay people, or would discriminate against them in the work place or anything like that, so stop your criticiscing Ag Marbh. An accurate poll would have given us options, this poll creates a divide whereby you're either pro-gay adoption or 'completely anti-gays' which is disgusting in the 21st century.]

hope that clears a few things up
patzer

Rev Hellfire

Its funny but it seems to me that when people talk about adoption (and this isn't just limited to the whole gays have the right to adopt thing) they are missing the point.
Adoption of a child is not a right it’s a privilege. The item of concern is the welfare of the child and what will be best for them, your or anybody else’s rights don’t come into it.

As for are gays incapable of being good parents, there’s certainly no reason to think so. But might a child be better of in a conventional home. I’d say yes since there is no reason to expose them to the problems that a gay couple may be subjected to. For the same reason single's shouldn't also be allowed to adopt in my humble opinion. Because ultimately if we're honest when people look to adopt its for a selfish reason, something they do for themselves. And I would count myself no different.

Mia belle

Rev Hellfire do you think a couple deciding to have biological children are also selfish? We decided to start a family because we both adore children, when it wasn't happening for us our next step was adoption, I don't feel we were being selfish in wanting children in our lives.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Onto adoption, I'm of the opinion that drunks and criminals shouldn't be allowed to adopt too Freelancer, i think, ideally, only happily married heterosexual couples who can provide a good home for the child should be allowed to adopt. i simply feel that a child needs both a male and female role model in their lives. I know plenty of situations exist where this isn't the case, but i think that with adoption we have the chance to make it possible, so why settle for second best?

Okay, but for example theres a shortage of foster homes in the UK, patronizing talk about rolemodels aside, theres a need for stable families to adopt and foster, why should children be deprived of that right to adopt.

Would you rather see a child raised in a romanian orphanage than be adopted by a gay couple?

Inane talk about rolemodels and traditional family values aside, if you're talking about the welfare of children being paramount.

There are millions of children in this world who need a good home, and too few couples brave enough to adopt, why deprive gay couples and children this because of some inspid leave it to beaveresque dream of "family values"

Mia belle

By the way, I totally agree the childs rights are the most important thing in adoption, but I feel if a couple/single of whatever sex feel they are ready and able to raise an adopted child then they should be able to do so. I doubt anyone decides to adopt just to make a point, its all about wanting to raise and love a child and a persons sexual preferance shouldn't even come into it. No one decides overnight to start a family, adoption is no different.

Rev Hellfire

Mia belle wrote:

Rev Hellfire do you think a couple deciding to have biological children are also selfish? We decided to start a family because we both adore children, when it wasn't happening for us our next step was adoption, I don't feel we were being selfish in wanting children in our lives.

Yes, I'd say your motives are selfish. This is something you're doing for yourself to make you happy. Now I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, but if you're honest its a totally selfish act.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

A minute ago you were making absurd claims about "women limiting sex" :

What I meant was, crudely, who gets the headaches? (if it is you, then im sorry)

Freelancer wrote:

and god alone knows what the comment about "to cities" meant.:

In the Bible (no im not very religious) God blows up two cities because they accept gays.

Freelancer wrote:

Where's your evidence that these children would recieve worse bullying?:

Of course, how silly of me, I forgot about all the fat bashings, tall bashings, glasses bashing! I forgot that there are organisations that picket the funerals of fat people who die of diabetes.

Freelancer wrote:

And no one has a right to limit the rights of gay couples to adopt because of netherthals like yourself might be outraged. :

Personal comment. I'd say that was beneath you but you've done this in other forums. It has nothing to do with my outrage (I don't care that strongly, it is to do with children in danger.

Freelancer wrote:

Are you really honestly suggesting that you would endanger the life of a child because she or he is adopted by gay couples?:

Of course, anyone who acknowledges that racism exists must be in the Klan. Grow up.

Freelancer wrote:

God its been a while since I was on George's st are the regular mass stones still occuring at the George around closing time? :rolleyes:

They have Garda to protect them now.

Mia belle

so anytime anyone does anything to make them happy no matter what it is they are being selfish. My definition of a selfish person is someone who only thinks of themselves and disregards others.

egan007

A thread with "GAY RIGHTS" is f*cking hillarious!

Exercise your right as humans and quit semantics!
Man there are some weak ass people here - excuse the pun

The_Minister

Mia belle wrote:

so anytime anyone does anything to make them happy no matter what it is they are being selfish. My definition of a selfish person is someone who only thinks of themselves and disregards others.

I think he means that you did it for your fulfillment rather than through concern for the child. I think his premise is a bit wobbly.