Gay Rights

Blub2k4

Firespinner wrote:

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

So in what way did these "friends" think that the children would be at risk and how would this risk be mitigated if we "wait for a while"?
Their point was more from the bullying point of view?
Are these friends all around the 18 mark? Is it possible that they are projecting their own situations of coming out in hostile school environments onto others, even though the situation is in no way the same?
I have yet to see where it states anywhere that a gay man is more likely to be a paedophile than a straight, and you still have to demonstrate in some way other than "my mate" told me that that is the case. I dont think you can where others have studied it and come to other conclusions.

I think you are mixing up aberrant and perverse sexuality with homosexuality, which is neither of the aforementioned and as others said before, that makes you look foolish and frankly childish (not meant as an insult).

Dudess

Ok, I'm confuddled. Firespinner, where exactly do you stand on the issue? A couple of days ago you were all heavy-handed with the preachiness, accusing me of "peddling gay propaganda" and citing an Old Testament passage. While you maintain you don't buy into the fire and brimstone aspects of the Bible, you sure as hell seemed to then - saying "I wouldn't hold my breath" when I made the "God help us all" remark. Now you're claiming not to be the extremist you appeared to be then, but a moderate person. Either you've undergone a (partial) conversion or you're just being plain inconsistent and hypocritical or you know when you're beaten and have back-tracked on your earlier arguments because you've realised how ludicrous they are.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

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

Why yes you're a 18yo who has a group of "gay friends" and have had frank and detailed discusions about sexuality, where you have suggested gay people commit the most cases of paedophilia.

You also have a "guard friend" who gives you a detailed break down of security in the city center and protection of gay establishments.

You've also got a detailed understanding of sexual psychology which allows you to dismiss the work of over half a dozen experts because you "don't trust Kinsey" Have you ever read Kinsey? Or just watched the trailer for the movie?

Alternatively you're a bigoted little 18yo with little understanding of adult sexual dynamics who's made a number of dubious claims about adult sexuality and Irish society and when called on them; has been forced to create an imaginary group of "friends" to support your spurious claims and hatemongering.

I think we know which is more likely.

Remember a higher percentage are paedophiles (I can't see how straight guys could have sex with boys) but not all.

You can't see or refuse to see? I've presented a dirth of evidence to support the argument that paedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, you either won't see or aren't mature enough to see that your attitude is nothing more than ill informed bigotry.

Dudess

18? EIGHTEEN?! Bless. Ok, Firespinner, I don't have as much of a problem with you now that I know you're little more than a child. Hopefully you'll gain a deeper understanding of such issues as you get older.

Mia belle

Sorry, but there is no way any 18 year old knows the stress and responsability that comes with adoption, actually, I know you haven't a clue about the adoption process here or what raising an adopted child involves. I also don't think your mature enough to comment on parenting as you have been doing. Hopefully your warped opinions will change once you begin to mature.

Zombrex

Firespinner wrote:

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

A paedophile male that molests a boy is not (in most cases) a homosexual, or heterosexual since a most actual paedophiles have no proper adult sexual orientation.

The problem with this perception of paedophiles in modern society is that it is based on a miss-understanding of what sexually aroses a paedophile in the first place. People think it is the same as with adult arosal. It isn't.

It is not the gender of the child that aroses the paedophile, it is the youth of a child. The male paedophile molesting a boy is not arosed by the fact that the child is a boy (or girl), they are arosed by the fact that the child is a child.

So it is incorrect to say that a male paedophile molesting a boy is a homosexual, since it isn't the gender of the child that is arosing him in the first place.

ebby

ignorantspinner wrote:

God blew up two cities because they accepted Gays. I wouldn't hold your breath.

double check your Bible knowledge. Go and read it again.

http://www.usbible.com/Sin/sodom_and_gomorrah.htm

AngryBadger

rsynnott wrote:

Read the original post; it's quite clear.

Yeah i did that, and i'm still not convinced a homosexual couple is a healthy environment for a child.

rsynnott

Firespinner wrote:

What is the problem with saying "the gays" when that is who you are talking about?

Would you say 'the blacks' or 'the fats'? It's dehumanising.

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

Well, obviously, you not being able to see how carries more weight than actual real-world psychologists. And, er, you do know that most child sex abuse (especially in the home) is of females, right?

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

Yeah i did that, and i'm still not convinced a homosexual couple is a healthy environment for a child.

Why isn't it a healthy environment?

rsynnott

Freelancer wrote:

Why isn't it a healthy environment?

As a general rule, the sort of person who makes bald statements like that is the sort of person for whom 'why' is a foreign concept.

Actually, by extension, I am in general far more irritated by the 'because it just is' variety of homophobe, whether the educated 'mumble-mumble-mumble-i'm-trying-to-pretend-this-isn't-irrational-bigotry' variety (that UCD psychology professor springs to mind) or the 'durr-me-am-neanderthal' variety, than by the 'religious reasons' ones.

AngryBadger

Just for clarity, I didn't say it WAS NOT, I said I WASN'T CONVINCED, but I'm glad you took the opportunity to jump on the PC bandwagon Rsynnott.

Biologically it takes two heterosexual partners to create a child, children have always been raised by couples reflecting that paradigm. I think there are good reasons for that, and I wonder if a homosexual couple, (be they male or female), can fulfill the two roles that exist in a heterosexual relationship. Roles which are important to any child's emotional development.

Arcadian

You could use that same argument against raising children in a single parent family

AngryBadger

Arcadian wrote:

You could use that same argument against raising children in a single parent family

And I would use that same argument about raising children in single parent families.

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

Just for clarity, I didn't say it WAS NOT, I said I WASN'T CONVINCED, but I'm glad you took the opportunity to jump on the PC bandwagon Rsynnott.

Biologically it takes two heterosexual partners to create a child, children have always been raised by couples reflecting that paradigm. I think there are good reasons for that, and I wonder if a homosexual couple, (be they male or female), can fulfill the two roles that exist in a heterosexual relationship. Roles which are important to any child's emotional development.

Yet theres utterly no evidence that it is necessary, people can have a parent who is emotionally distant from them.

A friend of mine grew up with a father who was in the merchant navy, her father was often away for up to 6 or 7 months, and as a result she didn't have much contact with her father, and was raised primarily by her mother, but she has turned out completely normal.

Or the generation born in the late 30s to mid 40s in the UK? Most would have had little or no contact with their fathers for 6 or 7 years? They were primarly raised by an extented family of women.

AngryBadger

Freelancer wrote:

Yet theres utterly no evidence that it is necessary, people can have a parent who is emotionally distant from them.

I'm not saying they can't, but I am asking is that healthy? Is it ideal? Is that how you would imagine a relationship between a parent and child?

I'm not commenting on ths specific case of your friends, or indeed any other specific cases.

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

I'm not saying they can't, but I am asking is that healthy? Is it ideal? Is that how you would imagine a relationship between a parent and child?

I'm not commenting on ths specific case of your friends, or indeed any other specific cases.

But how do you think it will damage children? And what do you think is a healthier environment for a child? In a home with two people in a healthy loving relationship? Or a Romanian orphanage?

AngryBadger

Freelancer wrote:

But how do you think it will damage children? And what do you think is a healthier environment for a child? In a home with two people in a healthy loving relationship? Or a Romanian orphanage?

That argument doesn't hold up any better.

The original question was an absolute, should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children. In answer to that question I need a benchmark for the best conditions under which to raise a child, the best benchmark I have is that children have always been raised by heterosexual couples, this was as much a biological fact as anything else.

It's also accepted that children need both a "father", and a "mother" figure, and without these figures children tend to suffer in their upbringing. So I'm asking can a homosexual couple realistically expect to fulfill those roles?

Homosexual couples are no different to other couples in terms of how good/bad/indifferent they are as people. However, that doesn't have any bearing on the original question posed, which has to be answered in terms of what would be best for any children, ad in those terms I'm not convinced a homosexual couple could fulfill the nesessary roles.

The original question was not "Would a homosexual couple be a better choice for children than a romanian orphanage"

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

That argument doesn't hold up any better.

The original question was an absolute, should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children. In answer to that question I need a benchmark for the best conditions under which to raise a child, the best benchmark I have is that children have always been raised by heterosexual couples, this was as much a biological fact as anything else.

No a hetreosexual couple was the only way to bring a child into the world, its a biological requirement to create human life. It doesn't mean that it's the only environment that a child should to be raised in.

And again the traditional family hetreosexual unit is a fallacy, countless people have been raised outside some mythic 50s suburban 2.5 children enviroment, so to suggest theres something dangerous to children in being raised in an "non traditional" environment is simple scaremongering.

It's also accepted that children need both a "father", and a "mother" figure, and without these figures children tend to suffer in their upbringing. So I'm asking can a homosexual couple realistically expect to fulfill those roles?

And again thousands upon thousands of people have been raised in a environment without both a mother and father

Its an interesting use of the word figure by the way, people can develop that bond with non biological parents, who's to say one man won't biological imprint won't fit the mother roll.

The mother is just usually the person who takes care of basic needs, and spends the most time with children for example.

Homosexual couples are no different to other couples in terms of how good/bad/indifferent they are as people. However, that doesn't have any bearing on the original question posed, which has to be answered in terms of what would be best for any children, ad in those terms I'm not convinced a homosexual couple could fulfill the nesessary roles.

The question posed is a simple yes or no. Your justification is that you don't think they'll fit classic upbringing of a traditional family structure. You've ignored when its pointed out that thousands of people aren't raised in your traditional family unit, and turn out fine, so essentially your entire point that this could be "unhealthy" is moot.

The original question was not "Would a homosexual couple be a better choice for children than a romanian orphanage"

Fine but to say it's going to be unhealthy for children raised in this environment, what specifically are you concerns, what evidence do you have that people not raised in a traditional family unit are "unhealthier" that people who are?

AngryBadger

Freelancer wrote:

No a hetreosexual couple was the only way to bring a child into the world, its a biological requirement to create human life. It doesn't mean that it's the only environment that a child should to be raised in...to suggest theres something dangerous to children in being raised in an "non traditional" environment is simple scaremongering...people can develop that bond with non biological parents...The mother is just usually the person who takes care of basic needs, and spends the most time with children for example...You've ignored when its pointed out that thousands of people aren't raised in your traditional family unit, and turn out fine, so essentially your entire point that this could be "unhealthy" is moot.

Firstly, in none of my posts did I say homosexual couples, would be "unhealthy", or "dangerous", I'm merely postulating based on the very real history of child rearing that exists.

"Fine" is a completely relative term. Neither of us can claim t have a total understanding of the bonds that deveop between children, and their biological parents, what is surely obvious is that these bonds do exist. If these bonds are severed, for whatever reason, it will be an issue for the child in later life. This is a fact.

Erego, there is some intangible advantage to a child being raised by their natural parents. I'm simply wondering if that bond, those relationships can be supplanted as easily as you suggest? And I'm also not blind to the possibile social fallout for both child, and society when raised by a homosexual couple.

I fial to see how this is scaremongering in any way, to deny what I'm talking about is just being obtuse about the whole issue.

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

Firstly, in none of my posts did I say homosexual couples, would be "unhealthy", or "dangerous", I'm merely postulating based on the very real history of child rearing that exists.

Here;

AngryBadger wrote:

i'm still not convinced a homosexual couple is a healthy environment for a child.

"not" and "healthy" ergo unhealthy, you've decline to explain what you mean by "not healthy" for a page now.

As for the "real" history of child rearing, your fixation on the basis that a 2.5 hetreosexual couple raising a child together ignores the real history that dynamic didn't and doesn't exist for tens of thousands of perfectly normal people in this country, therefore suggesting that we need a straight nuclear family to be raised well is wrong.

"Fine" is a completely relative term. Neither of us can claim t have a total understanding of the bonds that deveop between children, and their biological parents, what is surely obvious is that these bonds do exist. If these bonds are severed, for whatever reason, it will be an issue for the child in later life. This is a fact.

The scenario you're suggesting is the exact same situation for any adopted child. Their "bonds" are "severed" from their biological parents when they are adopted.

So that isn't an argument aganist gay couples adopting, its an argument aganist anyone adopting.

Is it adoption or gay adoption you have issue with?

Erego, there is some intangible advantage to a child being raised by their natural parents. I'm simply wondering if that bond, those relationships can be supplanted as easily as you suggest?

Well again the above is argument aganist adoption period, and I submit that the many happy well adjusted adopted people in this world, are a case for nurture rather than nature creating a powerful bond between parents be they straight or gay.

And I'm also not blind to the possibile social fallout for both child, and society when raised by a homosexual couple.

Ah the stigma thats been long covered, but tell us, what social fallout do you see for the child. And please elaborate what fallout will there be for society?

I fial to see how this is scaremongering in any way, to deny what I'm talking about is just being obtuse about the whole issue.

I'm being obtuse? You're the one pussyfooting around what you are saying, you've failed to elaborate why you don't think its "healthy" for children to be in a gay environment.

AngryBadger

I have no interest in being painted as a hompphonbe by you or anyone else Freelancer. I'm querying the suitability of a homosexual relationship as an environment for raising a child end of story. if you don't like it feel free to write a letter.

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

I have no interest in being painted as a hompphonbe by you or anyone else Freelancer. I'm querying the suitability of a homosexual relationship as an environment for raising a child end of story. if you don't like it feel free to write a letter.

Excuse me? When did I say or even suggest that you were a homophobe.

And you're not querying, you've muttered something about a homosexual enviroment might not be "healthy" for children and have refused to elaborate further what you mean by that, but instead have go off on a tagent about "severing biological links" and "social fallout for society" but again refused to elaborate what you think that means. If you want to bring something to the debate explain your position and opinion and where you are coming from, dont claim "you're querying the suitability" when all you've done is thrown your opinion into the ring and refused to explain what drew you to your position.

klash

BoozyBabe wrote:

Do you find it strange that those who are voting No in the poll won't post to explain their reasoning.

I know it's anonymous, & they're entitled to keep it that way, but to have such strong views & not state why.......??

Why would it be strange ?

Anyone who says anything thats even remotely politically incorrect is going to get slated and they know it, especially on boards.ie. Any group that was discriminated against in the past is now on the "we're more equal then you" footing, just look at feminists rights or gay movement rights or black rights.

i.e > Anyone who says one word against gay marraiges know they are going to get shot down like a bus full of jews travelling through nazi germany and be called everything under the sun including backward & homophobic.

Anyways on the marraige thing, yeah they should definately have the same rights as a straight couple. No question about it, its high time they were granted that right that they deserve.

Adoption -> Absolutely not, under any circumstances whatsoever should a gay couple be allowed to adopt or take care of a child. Think of the childs welfare here and not your own selfishness.

coffee_cake

klash wrote:

Why would it be strange ?

Anyone who says anything thats even remotely politically incorrect is going to get slated and they know it, especially on boards.ie. Any group that was discriminated against in the past is now on the "we're more equal then you" footing, just look at feminists rights or gay movement rights or black rights.

i.e > Anyone who says one word against gay marraiges know they are going to get shot down like a bus full of jews travelling through nazi germany and be called everything under the sun including backward & homophobic.

Not if they actually made some sense.

Adoption -> Absolutely not, under any circumstances whatsoever should a gay couple be allowed to adopt or take care of a child. Think of the childs welfare here and not your own selfishness.

The only thing I see anyone against gay adoption thinking of is their personal distaste for gay couples, and a desire to pander to potential bullies.

AB wrote:

I'm querying the suitability of a homosexual relationship as an environment for raising a child end of story.

Based on what?


http://www.gayrightswatch.com/2005/10/study-children-raised-by-gay-parents.html

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

As this summary will show, the results of existing research comparing gay and lesbian parents to heterosexual parents and children of gay or lesbian parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite uniform: common sterotypes are not supported by the data.

Freelancer

klash wrote:

i.e > Anyone who says one word against gay marraiges know they are going to get shot down like a bus full of jews travelling through nazi germany and be called everything under the sun including backward & homophobic.

No not true it's just that the anti adoption side doesn't have an argument.

To be honest I've more respect for my dad who's opinion on homosexuality is that it's just "wrong". I could try and argue with him, and he wouldn't listen and at the end of the day it's all just "wrong" to him.

However the anti adoption group here, try to rationalise their argument. Fine if I'm arguing my position and someone presents me with facts which challenge it, I need to either, change my position, or research my opposites facts further.

The anti adoption side of the debate has hidden what seem to be a predjudice , aganist gays adopting and back it up with, spurious claims, outright lies, and urban myths. They've not backed up their claims, and dismissed any material that challenges their assertions or just plain ignored what doesn't suit.

All the anti adoption side are left with are half truths and muttered claims about "child welfare" and "unhealthy". Thats fine but don't debate that your argument has any merit, it's just bigotry. Be honest about it.

Anyways on the marraige thing, yeah they should definately have the same rights as a straight couple. No question about it, its high time they were granted that right that they deserve.

Adoption -> Absolutely not, under any circumstances whatsoever should a gay couple be allowed to adopt or take care of a child. Think of the childs welfare here and not your own selfishness.

And again what are you claiming would happen to a child? Which is preferable a child growing up in a loving environment or growing up in an orpanhange?

The_Minister

Following up on my posts about children getting victimised, I was unable to get the figure for ROI but I got the North's.

irish independent wrote:

The PSNI figures showed that racial incidents doubled from 226 attacks in 2002 to 453 last year, with homophobic crimes increasing from 35 to 71 over the same period.

This was in '04 so if the trend continued then it would be higher still. Assuming that the introduction of gay marraige would increase such tensions and cause more attacks, then there is a clear danger of retaliations on easier targets. Considering that (as with rape) most of such attacks are not reported then the real figure is far higher. Only 7% of these crimes are prosecuted. Are you trying to tell me that there is no danger to children? These people have children and when they get older these people will still be around.






http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1180295&issue_id=10862

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Following up on my posts about children getting victimised, I was unable to get the figure for ROI but I got the North's.

This was in '04 so if the trend continued then it would be higher still. Assuming that the introduction of gay marraige would increase such tensions and cause more attacks, then there is a clear danger of retaliations on easier targets. Considering that (as with rape) most of such attacks are not reported then the real figure is far higher. Only 7% of these crimes are prosecuted. Are you trying to tell me that there is no danger to children? These people have children and when they get older these people will still be around.






http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1180295&issue_id=10862

The figures are a distortion, theres also a statistically higher number of racialy motivated assaults in northern Ireland. The North is a breeding ground for hate crimes. Combine that with some of the loyalists paramilitaries connections to far right groups such as combat 18 etc, it's easy to see that the figures for both racist and homophobic attacks in the north, cannot be used to paint and accurate picture of the reality in Ireland as a whole.

One also needs to question when these attacks occur? Late at night, in the city center not an environment children are found in.

Secondly, you claim that

that (as with rape) most of such attacks are not reported then the real figure is far higher

What evidence do you have to back up this assertion? Why would someone be afraid to come forward after being the victim of a hate crime? You offer a
7% figure that statistic has more to do with rape prosecutions that a common homophobic assault.

Finally the fact that after 10 minutes of looking I cannot find a single link to statistics for homophobic assaults in Ireland, would suggest that, this isn't an issue that the gay community in Republic of Ireland have to deal with to any real degree, and you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Metacortex

Dudess wrote:

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.

Hear Hear!
Im willing to bet that a kid raised by a gay couple is going to turn out to be a hell of alot more tolerant towards others who are perceived as 'different', then someone raised in a so called 'normal' enviorment where gay people are bad the bible has all the answers.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

The figures are a distortion, theres also a statistically higher number of racialy motivated assaults in northern Ireland.

I was not trying to distort anything I could not find the figures for ROI. One website I found critisised the government for not keeping records of these figures, but I'm pretty sure they do.

Freelancer wrote:

What evidence do you have to back up this assertion? Why would someone be afraid to come forward after being the victim of a hate crime? You offer a
7% figure that statistic has more to do with rape prosecutions that a common homophobic assault.

Google "homophobic attacks statistics" and you will find that the 7% figure is repeated many times regarding homophobic assaults.

Freelancer wrote:

Finally the fact that after 10 minutes of looking I cannot find a single link to statistics for homophobic assaults in Ireland, would suggest that, this isn't an issue that the gay community in Republic of Ireland have to deal with to any real degree, and you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

It suggests that the Gaurds may not keep these assaults classes differently than other assaults. The gay community do not compile these statistics.