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
Civil Marriage Protest! 9th August!
Options
Comments
-
So, a child is better off in foster care, where many children get abused (though not always) and aren't in a stable situation as many go from home to home, or in an orphanage, where both situations do not provide even one parent, then in a stable home where his/her adoptive parents are a same-sex couple. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
My position would actually be to promote more heterosexual couples to adopt. No doubt there is already the case of infertile couples adopting, but there is plenty of scope for how the Government can promote heterosexual adoption. I feel every child deserves a mother and a father and that that is their right.
That would be the ambition. To seek homes for children with both mothers and fathers. After that other alternatives could be discussed. However, I think that heterosexual couples should be given first priority in relation to adoption.Also, what about all those heterosexual families who need to find a sperm donor due to the male have sperm issues, would you require them to keep in contact with the sperm donor. . . I don't think so.
I think that would be actually a good idea. Keeping in contact with biological parents in the case of adoptions should be something that is practiced in case the child is ever curious about who their biological parents are. I think it is dishonest and cruel to deprive a child the true knowledge of who their parents are.If I were to give birth, I should have the right to request that my partner adopt my child as his/her second parent, and the government shouldn't be able to tell me no, especially if the adoption took place elsewhere, as in my situation, it'll take place in the Netherlands. Also, there are lots of male and female role models for children outside of this home. In fact, my parents, a heterosexual couple, were never around and I sought guidance outside of the home. I always have.
If you could keep that relationship structure while enabling contact from the child's other biological parent I wouldn't have all too much an issue with this. I do believe that impact from the childs biological father on a regular enough basis is important.
As for adoptions taking place elsewhere, I still think there should be a right for the sperm donor to visit the child at any stage. Legally that sperm donor should be regarded as his biological father.This argument is so backwards. Yes, lets leave all these children on orphanages and foster care because those environments are soooooo much more stable and loving. Before you go on to say that everyone wants to adopt a baby, that isn't always the case. In fact, if my partner and I were to adopt a child that neither of us gave birth to, I would adopt a child between 5-10 years of age, as they are more likely to remain in their current situation than get adopted as most people want babies.
The ideal would be to find good homes with both a mother and a father to raise the child. I never said that it was always the case, but it should be regarded as the ideal situation to provide a child with both a mother and a father.Also, if a partner who gives birth isn't allowed to have their partner adopt, there's a chance that those children who have been raised in a household for years, with both parents and other siblings could have their world torn apart if their biological parent were to die. That is cruel. Lets take all these children away from a healthy familiar environment when they need their family most.
It is situations like these why I suggest that the biological family is preferrable to other family structures, it is also reasons like this why I suggest that the sperm donors should be more actively involved in the lives of the children that are born to them. Sperm donation should be regarded as both a right and a responsibility. It isn't merely the selling off of biological material, it is forming a new life which inherits your DNA.0 -
Jakkass, we don't live in an 'Ideal World'. Even among heterosexual couples, the ideal is hard to come by.
There are loving people in stable relationships who are willing and able to take a child out of foster care and raise them as part of a loving family... and you'd prefer to deny them that in favour of holding out for some mythical idea of what 'should be'.
What you want does not exist. What does exist you are unwilling to accept.0 -
I am entitled to take my position on the issue.
I don't accept that anyone is entitled to a position where they would see my undeniable human rights witheld from me because of personal preference or the way they think things should be.
Tradition has been proven to be a burden time and time again, and society has constantly improved itself and reshaped itself to truly serve its members. Racism, sexism, rape (if you live on Pitcairn Island) etc have all been recognised as maladaptive and steps taken against them. Why should gay rights be any different?
And in case you think you're not being homophobic and just "trying to protect traditional marriage", you're not. You're being homophobic. Not giving equal rights means you don't think homosexuals are equal people. End of story.0 -
Iwasfrozen is clearly very badly misinformed and keeps contradicitng himself on this issue. Firstly it is unknown if lifting the ban on same sex marriage would require a constitutional referendum - it can be argued and indeed is being in a case before the supreme court that there is no constitutional impediment given that the constitution does not actually define marriage. Until that case has been heard or legislation lifting ban was referred to the supreme court we will not know for certain if a referendum is required. So for Iwasfrozen to keep stating that a referendum is
He interjects that "marriage is not a right" and yet later admits that it is in fact a right under article 16 of the UN declaration of human rights
He then keeps going on about how public opinion in a strong way is needed in a strong way before the government can initiate a change in the constitution indeed he goes so far as to suggest that a government is not "entitled" to call a referendum unless it has proof that the people are calling for a referendum this is obviously complete nonsense there
He goes on and on about polls stating as facet that no neutral polls have been carried out when clearly this is not the case - polls have been conducted for the sunday tribune and irish examiner in 2006 (anyway I don't get the point of this - should the government only ever legislate on something that has popular support in an opinion poll) - both suggested that a majority of Irish people do actually support gay marriage
He suggests that nothing can be done on this issue until research has proven that this is what Irish people want but then states the research can't be carried out by the government because they might upset one or other side
He goes on and on about nothing should be done in this area until it becomes "an important election issue" - if governments were to take that approach then neothing would ever get done - and anyway this was an issue that was raised during the 2007 election - every single party pledged to legislate for partnership rights in some form - they would not have done this if it was not an issue
He suggests that " a few" people within the the LGBT community have called for marriage and yet yesterdays protest of 5,000 suggests more than a few
He suggests that governments should only change things at "at the invitation of the public" - if we followed that line on things then we would never have decriminalised homosexuality in 1993, the USA would still be a racially segregated country - there was hardly a mass public clamouring for these issues- Iwasfrozen does not seem to realise that sometimes the functions of government is to actually protect minorities despite the views and will of the general public -
he then states his own personal opposition to same sex marriage because "it cheapens a bond that has remained unchanged in one form or another since Ancient times." and yet it has changed hugely..... as has been pointed out there were actually previoulsy forms of same sex marriage - in America intterracial marriage was banned. In 1937 when the Irish constitution was introduced a 12 year old girl could legally marry yet when pulled up on this point he suggests that he was talking about "contemporary marriage" - so he goes from saying the institution that marriage has remained unchanged since ancient times - when it is pointed out it has he of course brings in "contemporary marriage" - I suppose you could call 1937 contemporary - perhaps we should still allow 12 year old girls to marry?
He states that he is "pro gay rights as long as it does not affect another human being" yet anti gay marriage - I don't particularly follow that logic
Anyway just my 2 cent on this issueIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
The final bill has been published.
No the Bill can be amended when it goes before the Dail and SeanadIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 64905
No the Bill can be amended when it goes before the Dail and Seanad
Amendments can be tabled but realistically none of them are going to pass. The final bill the government are going to table has been published - Labour and SF might throw a few amendments forward but they won't get in.0 -
MatthewVII wrote: »And in case you think you're not being homophobic and just "trying to protect traditional marriage", you're not. You're being homophobic. Not giving equal rights means you don't think homosexuals are equal people. End of story.
I was expecting this. I have no aversion, hatred, or fear of homosexuals. Infact I wish them the best of happiness, I just happen to disagree on whether or not marriage should be changed. As marriage is the foundation of the family, and as marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. I personally do not.
I do support civil partnerships being explored as an alternative to the heterosexual marriage ceremony.
One would find it perculiar to refer to it as discrimination, as all can get married, however there are restrictions on who or indeed what one can be married to.
End of story. I regard homosexuals as being entirely equal to heterosexuals, I do not believe that a man can replace a mother, or a woman can replace a father for obvious reasons. That does not imply that I show the slightest of hatred towards people of a different sexual orientation to my own. It rather only demonstrates that I have disagreements concerning marriage.
Now MatthewVII, tell me, can people disagree without hating one another?0 -
Gay marrige is not a human right, no matter how much you want it to be.MatthewVII wrote: »I don't accept that anyone is entitled to a position where they would see my undeniable human rights witheld from me because of personal preference or the way they think things should be.
How can you honestly write that all tradition has a negitive impact ? Do you know how dum you sound ?MatthewVII wrote: »Tradition has been proven to be a burden time and time again, and society has constantly improved itself and reshaped itself to truly serve its members. Racism, sexism, rape (if you live on Pitcairn Island) etc have all been recognised as maladaptive and steps taken against them. Why should gay rights be any different?
So you can guess what we think now ? I am not Homophobic I support Civil partnership. End of Story.MatthewVII wrote: »And in case you think you're not being homophobic and just "trying to protect traditional marriage", you're not. You're being homophobic. Not giving equal rights means you don't think homosexuals are equal people. End of story.
I ment marriage in the context of that particular poster I was replying to, i.e Gay marraige.Johnnymcg wrote:He interjects that "marriage is not a right" and yet later admits that it is in fact a right under article 16 of the UN declaration of human rights
Would you care to point out how the Government being obliged to only act on the will of the people is complete nonsense ?Johnnymcg wrote:He then keeps going on about how public opinion in a strong way is needed in a strong way before the government can initiate a change in the constitution indeed he goes so far as to suggest that a government is not "entitled" to call a referendum unless it has proof that the people are calling for a referendum this is obviously complete nonsense there
Do you have links to these polls ? I would like to see who in these newspapers compiled the polls and what Gay rights campaigners they are connected to.Jhonnymcg wrote:He goes on and on about polls stating as facet that no neutral polls have been carried out when clearly this is not the case - polls have been conducted for the sunday tribune and irish examiner in 2006 (anyway I don't get the point of this - should the government only ever legislate on something that has popular support in an opinion poll) - both suggested that a majority of Irish people do actually support gay marriage
Yes, that is true. The Governments only aim is to keep their seats, why should they act on anything that may cost them their seats ?Jhonnymcg wrote:He suggests that nothing can be done on this issue until research has proven that this is what Irish people want but then states the research can't be carried out by the government because they might upset one or other side
Civil partnership is needed to provide gay couples with financial security.Jhonnymcg wrote:He goes on and on about nothing should be done in this area until it becomes "an important election issue" - if governments were to take that approach then neothing would ever get done - and anyway this was an issue that was raised during the 2007 election - every single party pledged to legislate for partnership rights in some form - they would not have done this if it was not an issue
America only relaxed Race laws because that is what the White majority wanted, granted there where a few hill bllies who wheren't happy about it but the majority of the electorate wanted Racial integration.Jhonnymcg wrote:He suggests that governments should only change things at "at the invitation of the public" - if we followed that line on things then we would never have decriminalised homosexuality in 1993, the USA would still be a racially segregated country - there was hardly a mass public clamouring for these issues- Iwasfrozen does not seem to realise that sometimes the functions of government is to actually protect minorities despite the views and will of the general public -0 -
Amendments can be tabled but realistically none of them are going to pass. The final bill the government are going to table has been published - Labour and SF might throw a few amendments forward but they won't get in.
Fergus Ryan has suggested some amendments which I presume will be taken on board by many TDs and parties -I wouldn't bet that NO amendments will be passed - Government TDs might also try and amend it and the Oireachtas committee on justice may also reccomend as a whole some amendments
http://www.glen.ie/CivilPartnershipQandA.htm#_Toc237176092It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64905
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Gay marrige is not a human right, no matter how much you want it to be.
Marriage is a human right, and no matter how much you want it to be, it doesn't define it as being between a man and a woman.Iwasfrozen wrote: »How can you honestly write that all tradition has a negitive impact ? Do you know how dum you sound ?
You're reading text that isn't there, again. He never said that all tradition had a negative impact. And if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, spell the word right (its "dumb")Iwasfrozen wrote: »So you can guess what we think now ? I am not Homophobic I support Civil partnership. End of Story.
You don't support equal rights. That is his point. Civil partnership is not equal rights.Iwasfrozen wrote: »America only relaxed Race laws because that is what the White majority wanted, granted there where a few hill bllies who wheren't happy about it but the majority of the electorate wanted Racial integration.
The white majority didn't want relaxed race laws, if you believe that you've taken an amazingly whitewash view of history. Support for civil rights has always been a very liberal middle-class thing in the US, and they sure as anything aren't the majority.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64905
Does disagreement constitute hatred? Yes or no?
Its not 'disagreement' as you try to spin it. You don't not support equal rights - you do not accept that people are deserving of being treated equally. This is not a 'disagreement'.
Spin, fluff and bluff - there is a highly paid position on a bank board or in the chambers of the Oireachtas awaiting you.0 -
I'd agree with you there. I wouldn't see marriage or raising children as an undeniable human right, and I think those of us championing these things should be a bit more careful when throwing those terms around.Iwasfrozen wrote:Gay marrige is not a human right, no matter how much you want it to be.
But what is being denied here is the right to be treated equally in society.
It's a biological fact (you can argue psychological if you want, that doesn't change anything) that I do not fall in love with members of the opposite sex. As a consequence, I am denied the right to have my relationships treated equally to those of my heterosexual peers. Not good enough tbh.0 -
Its not 'disagreement' as you try to spin it. You don't not support equal rights - you do not accept that people are deserving of being treated equally. This is not a 'disagreement'.
Spin, fluff and bluff - there is a highly paid position on a bank board or in the chambers of the Oireachtas awaiting you.
Of course it's disagreement. It's nothing but disingenuous to claim that I hate homosexuals in any way, infact it is a leap that would be utterly unjustified considering I am quite happy to accept Civil Partnerships. I disagree in relation to whether or not the definition of marriage need be altered at all. Indeed, some homosexuals agree with this view.
I think people should be wary of the abuse of the term "homophobia" to apply to any situation other than genuine hatred of homosexuals, which of course I utterly oppose. Any violence, or any hatred towards anyone in the LGBT community is unjustified, as is hateful speech.
As for the job in the Oireachtas, I'm really not interested :pac:. I have other ideas in mind.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64905
Of course it's disagreement. It's nothing but disingenuous to claim that I hate homosexuals in any way, infact it is a leap that would be utterly unjustified considering I am quite happy to accept Civil Partnerships. I disagree in relation to whether or not the definition of marriage need be altered at all. Indeed, some homosexuals agree with this view.
I think people should be wary of the abuse of the term "homophobia" to apply to any situation other than genuine hatred of homosexuals, which of course I utterly oppose. Any violence, or any hatred towards anyone in the LGBT community is unjustified, as is hateful speech.
As for the job in the Oireachtas, I'm really not interested :pac:. I have other ideas in mind.
I've never claimed you hate homosexuals. I claim you're against equal rights, and you've provided more than enough proof of that.
Using Mark Simpson as a source for a "some homosexuals..." comment is about as valid as using Michael Cox as a source for "some bishops..."
Without "altering the definition" of marriage you do not get equality. And from your other posts, it seems you would be against a direct photocopy by a different name, too.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Would you care to point out how the Government being obliged to only act on the will of the people is complete nonsense ?
Yes we have representative democracy in this country which means that goverments sometimes make decisions that the public are not demanding e.g. the public has not been demanding laws for blasphemy, the ratification of the lisbon treaty etc - can you explain how exactly the government is under any such "obligation"- do you mean a legal obligation? a moral obligation? -Iwasfrozen wrote: »
Do you have links to these polls ? I would like to see who in these newspapers compiled the polls and what Gay rights campaigners they are connected to.
Can't find them offhand but will do some digging but I am almost certain they were carried out by RedC and TNSMRBIIwasfrozen wrote: »Yes, that is true. The Governments only aim is to keep their seats, why should they act on anything that may cost them their seats ?
If the government only took action because they wanted to keep their seats safe then the government would never ever take any unpopoular action - they would never have called for a divorce referendum, never have increased taxes in any way, never have decriminalised homosexuality, never have tried to block a girl from travelling - governments constantly have to make decisions that electorates may not like - The aim of governments is....... wait for it.........."to govern" not to hold opinion polls on every single legislative matter and then to take the populist routeIwasfrozen wrote: »Civil partnership is needed to provide gay couples with financial security.
The issue of partnership is MUCH bigger than money - there are so many other issues... housing, tenancy, social welfare, health, immigration, domestic violence, and frankly it is patronising to suggest that this is only about "financial security"Iwasfrozen wrote: »America only relaxed Race laws because that is what the White majority wanted, granted there where a few hill bllies who wheren't happy about it but the majority of the electorate wanted Racial integration.
Really? what is your source for that?It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Of course it's disagreement. It's nothing but disingenuous to claim that I hate homosexuals in any way, infact it is a leap that would be utterly unjustified considering I am quite happy to accept Civil Partnerships. I disagree in relation to whether or not the definition of marriage need be altered at all. Indeed, some homosexuals agree with this view.
I think people should be wary of the abuse of the term "homophobia" to apply to any situation other than genuine hatred of homosexuals, which of course I utterly oppose. Any violence, or any hatred towards anyone in the LGBT community is unjustified, as is hateful speech.
As for the job in the Oireachtas, I'm really not interested :pac:. I have other ideas in mind.
This guys opinion is not exactly valid in the context of civil partnership in this country given that in the UK partnership is akin to marriage and in Ireland it will not be. Civil partnerships differ across the board from country to country and Ireland is not the same as any other country in terms of it's partnership laws.0 -
This guys opinion is not exactly valid in the context of civil partnership in this country given that in the UK partnership is akin to marriage and in Ireland it will not be. Civil partnerships differ across the board from country to country and Ireland is not the same as any other country in terms of it's partnership laws.
Again - we do not yet know what the final Civil Partnership Bill will be like!It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
I was expecting this. I have no aversion, hatred, or fear of homosexuals. Infact I wish them the best of happiness, I just happen to disagree on whether or not marriage should be changed. As marriage is the foundation of the family, and as marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. I personally do not.
You do not hate homosexuals. That's good. You don't see them as deserving of equal rights in the eyes of the law. That's bad.Jakkass wrote:One would find it perculiar to refer to it as discrimination, as all can get married, however there are restrictions on who or indeed what one can be married to.
Have you ever met Brenda Power? The resemblance is uncanny.....Jakkass wrote:End of story. I regard homosexuals as being entirely equal to heterosexuals, I do not believe that a man can replace a mother, or a woman can replace a father for obvious reasons. That does not imply that I show the slightest of hatred towards people of a different sexual orientation to my own. It rather only demonstrates that I have disagreements concerning marriage.
It demonstrates that you do not think that homosexuals are capable of raising a child. Does that not imply that you think them inferior to heterosexuals? Bear in mind that you earlier stated that you hold this belief without proof. This means that you are holding this opinion only through your own prejudiced view of how homosexuals can raise a child.Jakkass wrote:Now MatthewVII, tell me, can people disagree without hating one another?
Love the sinner, hate the sinIwasfrozen wrote:Gay marrige is not a human right, no matter how much you want it to be.
Correct. However, happiness and equality absolutely are human rights. I was thinking outside the box. CrazyIwasfrozen wrote:How can you honestly write that all tradition has a negitive impact ? Do you know how dum you sound ?
I don't. For example, I think the tradition of avoiding placing priceless ming vases on creaky stepladders beside frequently-opened doors is flawless. I do not however support traditions which isolate or discriminate against members of society.Iwasfrozen wrote:So you can guess what we think now ? I am not Homophobic I support Civil partnership. End of Story.
If you read Jakkass' reply, I was pretty accurate. Because it's what gay people are sick of hearing - 'I have nothing against gay people but just don't want them to marry'. It's a double facepalm because the holder honestly thinks they accept gay people as equal.
I honestly don't see why people are so concerned about Traditional Marriage. Allowing gay people to marry won't make heterosexual marriage less valuable or less special. It won't destroy our society or bother people who don't like gays in any way, shape or form. It's a logical stepping stone to a fair society which, when granted, we will all look back on and wonder how it was ever denied in the first place, like women's rights, like black rights etc.
As for Jakkass' perfect view on the world, where men and women get together and raise children to form a strong society, I offer an alternative utopia. I would want my child to grow up somewhere where people didn't have to wait until their 20s to come out of the closet, where "coming out" was an obsolete term since assumption of heterosexuality wouldn't be the case. I'd want people to be able to be openly gay in school and that not to cause any hassle with other schoolkids. I'd want them to be going to nights out and meeting same-sex partners in the same venue where their straight friends are meeting members of the opposite gender. Complete normalisation of homosexuality is a goal that seems lofty at the moment, but can only be achieved by equality of homosexuality. Gay marriage is a baby step in that direction and the only way to give equal citizens a fair chance at the happiness that is afforded to their heterosexual counterparts.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
MatthewVII wrote: »It demonstrates that you do not think that homosexuals are capable of raising a child. Does that not imply that you think them inferior to heterosexuals? Bear in mind that you earlier stated that you hold this belief without proof. This means that you are holding this opinion only through your own prejudiced view of how homosexuals can raise a child.
No, it demonstrates that I believe that children are best raised with both a mother and a father. I have no doubt that homosexuals can raise children just as I have no doubt that single mothers can raise children.MatthewVII wrote: »Love the sinner, hate the sin
I'd like to think that was my approach.MatthewVII wrote: »If you read Jakkass' reply, I was pretty accurate. Because it's what gay people are sick of hearing - 'I have nothing against gay people but just don't want them to marry'. It's a double facepalm because the holder honestly thinks they accept gay people as equal.
To be honest with you. I'm sick of hearing that I must hate homosexuals because I do not agree with altering marriage. I think I can have positive relationships with those who I disagree with. Infact I disagree with many of my friends on religion, yet it does not stop me being friends with them. Why is it so different when someone supports traditional marriage?MatthewVII wrote: »I honestly don't see why people are so concerned about Traditional Marriage. Allowing gay people to marry won't make heterosexual marriage less valuable or less special. It won't destroy our society or bother people who don't like gays in any way, shape or form. It's a logical stepping stone to a fair society which, when granted, we will all look back on and wonder how it was ever denied in the first place, like women's rights, like black rights etc.
I'm not so much concerned about the value of traditional marriage. I already know that it is something that is valuable. A lasting marriage is something that I think is admirable.
My issues begin when we discuss the raising of children in that equation. I believe that children have a right to both a mother and a father and I believe that it is important for children. This is the reason why I overwhelmingly support the biological family first and foremost, and the reason why I think the State should encourage it.MatthewVII wrote: »As for Jakkass' perfect view on the world, where men and women get together and raise children to form a strong society, I offer an alternative utopia.
Well, I do think this, but I would also have some views to impart about the other scenario you have raised underneath.MatthewVII wrote: »I would want my child to grow up somewhere where people didn't have to wait until their 20s to come out of the closet, where "coming out" was an obsolete term since assumption of heterosexuality wouldn't be the case. I'd want people to be able to be openly gay in school and that not to cause any hassle with other schoolkids. I'd want them to be going to nights out and meeting same-sex partners in the same venue where their straight friends are meeting members of the opposite gender.
I would want my child to understand that if they ever disagreed with me, I would still have compassion for them in every respect. I would also like my child to know that if one disagrees with me it is welcome, people disagree with eachother all the time in free society.
I think that children should be welcomed to discuss how they feel with their parents even if the parents might find some of what they feel to be disagreeable. It is far better to have things out in the open than bottled up.
At the same time I would be lying if I wouldn't be disappointed if any child of mine didn't seek a Christian path in their lives. I would have to accept it if my child decided to either reject Christianity, or decide to live a gay lifestyle.MatthewVII wrote: »Complete normalisation of homosexuality is a goal that seems lofty at the moment, but can only be achieved by equality of homosexuality. Gay marriage is a baby step in that direction and the only way to give equal citizens a fair chance at the happiness that is afforded to their heterosexual counterparts.
I disagree that gay marriage is the only way this can happen. I don't assume that homosexual relationships are the exact same to heterosexual relationships, because quite simply they aren't. Something can be "normalised" without regarding something as being entirely equivalent to the other.0 -
Infact I disagree with many of my friends on religion, yet it does not stop me being friends with them. Why is it so different when someone supports traditional marriage?
Because when you disagree with your friends on religion, you aren't telling them that they do not deserve happiness as much as a religious person?Jakkass wrote:My issues begin when we discuss the raising of children in that equation. I believe that children have a right to both a mother and a father and I believe that it is important for children. This is the reason why I overwhelmingly support the biological family first and foremost, and the reason why I think the State should encourage it.
Children, by default, have a mother and a father. Whether or not both partake in the raising of a child is elementary. This is the only reason you wish to avoid gay marriage, and yet you have no evidence apart from your own gut instinct. To rest such a weighty and forcefully-held opinion on this flimsy reason is interesting.Jakkass wrote:At the same time I would be lying if I wouldn't be disappointed if any child of mine didn't seek a Christian path in their lives. I would have to accept it if my child decided to either reject Christianity, or decide to live a gay lifestyle.
And, naturally, you wouldn't want your gay child to marry the person they loved, because then they would try and adopt a child and cause sub-optimal development.Jakkass wrote:I disagree that gay marriage is the only way this can happen. I don't assume that homosexual relationships are the same to heterosexual relationships, because quite simply they aren't. Something can be "normalised" without regarding something as being entirely equivalent to the other.
Without gay marriage, gay couples are not afforded the same rights as straight couples. Simple as. We are not looking for being equal, we are looking to be treated equally.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64905
I would have to accept it if my child decided to either reject Christianity, or decide to live a gay lifestyle.
There is no "decide" about it. You're gay or your not, you don't decide to be gay. I didn't chose to live a brown-eyed 'lifestyle', or chose to live a tall 'lifestyle' either.
Also, "love the sinner, hate the sin" as you claim to support is an impossibility. If you hate a fundamental, unchangeable aspect of a person, you hate the person. You can't fluff around that issue either.0 -
MatthewVII wrote: »Because when you disagree with your friends on religion, you aren't telling them that they do not deserve happiness as much as a religious person?
I'm not sure if one can be as fulfilled without religion than with it. That's for another forum though.MatthewVII wrote: »Children, by default, have a mother and a father. Whether or not both partake in the raising of a child is elementary. This is the only reason you wish to avoid gay marriage, and yet you have no evidence apart from your own gut instinct. To rest such a weighty and forcefully-held opinion on this flimsy reason is interesting.
I feel it is important for a child to be raised with a mother and a father. As for having no evidence but a gut instinct there is research, and there are journals to confirm that the lack of a father in family situations has detrimental impacts in the lives of children. There are other journals that argue that there are no potential issues with LGBT couples. I regard it as inconclusive, and I am not yet convinced that children are raised just as well by LGBT couples than by heterosexual couples.MatthewVII wrote: »Without gay marriage, gay couples are not afforded the same rights as straight couples. Simple as. We are not looking for being equal, we are looking to be treated equally.
Where rights conflict, one needs to review what is the best course of action. In this case I'm referring to the rights of a child to have a mother adn a father, and the right for LGBT couples to be regarded equally.0 -
iwasfrozen wrote:I am not Homophobic I support Civil partnership. End of Story.
This is analogous to someone in Early 20th century America, "I am not racist, I support blacks in marriage provided it is non-miscegenation."
You support civil union, but you don't support equality. That's discrimination.
You probably don't even see that, just as racists in 1940's America would not see that.
If you can't see how your personal, deep beliefs motivate your position, you clearly haven't the maturity for any form of discussion. The fact that you constantly jig and reel between contradictory stances, provided it's a contrary one, without even noticing you're doing it, just attests to how oblivious you are to yourself.Does disagreement constitute hatred? Yes or no?
Absolutely not. Terms like homophobia and hatred, which are bandied out a lot, are most often used very inappropriately.
It does come across to me, that underlying your views is a very uncompromising view on how a family should operate. You also come across as having a certain way of seeing homosexual parenting as just 'different', outside the ideal and therefore unsupportable.
Do you know many people who grew up in a situation outside of your own family ideal, and how do they come across to you as a person?
I know many people who grew up within what you would consider an ideal family who are not healthy individuals.
I don't know any person from any walk of life who didn't grow up with some issue or another they didn't need to deal with and learn from.
What do you hope having this ideal family will protect the children from? Because it certainly doesn't seem to protect them from the realities of life.
Nor could you even say it reduces their exposure to the reality of life. There is no escaping it. What is certain is that if the child isn't upset because the kids bully them for having a gay parent, the child is upset because kids bully them for having a different coloured lunch box.
The child is sad because she didn't have a father growing up, the child is sad because she didn't have an ideal relationship with her father growing up.
There are many families in Ireland today that do not meet your criteria for an ideal home. Fair enough if you would prefer to see encouraged an ideal which you see as being the best case scenario, but what about these people who are here now, already raising kids.
They don't fit your ideal, but having the government refuse to support them doesn't make their reality disappear.
The lack of Government support doesn't act as some deterrent, it just leaves many people in this situation out in the cold.My issues begin when we discuss the raising of children in that equation. I believe that children have a right to both a mother and a father and I believe that it is important for children. This is the reason why I overwhelmingly support the biological family first and foremost, and the reason why I think the State should encourage it.
They absolutely have the right to a mother and father. But the reality is in many situations the biological father/mother does not exist, or does not want to be in the equation in the first place. There are of course also incidents where the biological parent is taken out of the equation because they are abusive and harming the child.
A refusal of support for unusual family structures doesn't encourage a family to remain 'intact', and it doesn't wish away the reality of them existing.0 -
exactly, and look at us now, UCD has the highest rate of STI's in any EU university! so it's amazing what some protesting will do!Iwasfrozen wrote: »And I hope you are very happy together, but I just don't see Gay marriage happening in my lifetime.
Don't forget this is the country where you needed a prescription to get condoms 30 years ago.0 -
What The Hell Has Happened To My Thread!?
AHHHHHHH!!!
Okay I was in Dublin Sunday, for someone to say that 5,000 people protesting in Dublin's main streets outside The Dail and the Dept Of Justice, Equality & Law Reform does not really show that civil marriage is an issue is a HUGE understatement! I am shocked at most of IWASFOZEN's posts because of the lack of knowledge here. Can you please know about the issue before commenting, i.e. marriage legal age, homosexuality & the decriminalisation of it. Also I think your age says alot, although I know alot of mature 17 yr olds, you for one are not apart of that group. You seem to try bully other people with your views...no matter how wrong they are and I will not be commenting on this thread further! I am disgusted that at 17....YOU are this governments future. SHAME ON YOU!0 -
Can you define "well" in this context?... I am not yet convinced that children are raised just as well by LGBT couples than by heterosexual couples.
Do you believe that two white parents can't raise a black adoptee just as well as two black parents? I'm genuinely interested in this. And what about two straight parents raising a gay child? There are many "less-than-ideal" parent/child combinations in society that have the freedom to call themselves a family; why prohibit same-sex couples from parenting too?0 -
Do you believe that two white parents can't raise a black adoptee just as well as two black parents? I'm genuinely interested in this. And what about two straight parents raising a gay child? There are many "less-than-ideal" parent/child combinations in society that have the freedom to call themselves a family; why prohibit same-sex couples from parenting too?
This is fallacious for two reasons.
1) This assumes that homosexuality is biologically determined like race. This is highly debatable.
2) Two black parents in a marriage still have both a mother and a father. Race is an arbitrary issue. Sexuality would also be an arbitrary issue if it could be guaranteed that both a mother and a father could be involved in raising the child.
Carrying on. I'm aware that there are many less than ideal family structures, I personally think that we need to encourage the ideal more than the others.0 -
Advertisement
-
I I don't assume that homosexual relationships are the exact same to heterosexual relationships, because quite simply they aren't.
you don't assume that they are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships, but you DO assume that they aren't. Have you ever been in one? I'd say you need to have been in both at some point to even start to be able to make a comment like that. As it happens, I have, and I can tell you they were bizzarely similar.
So is it just the big M word that you take issue with? Why shouldn't I be able to enter into a contract with another adult to become a member of my family? If I have children (and I do have a functioning set of genitals), why shouldn't it be my right to say who looks after them if i die?0
Advertisement