Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

Iwasfrozen

jaffa20 wrote: »

Civil Partnership denies parents the right to make educational and medical decisions for their children; it denies them the right to visit their children in hospital; it denies them custody and visitation should the adult relationship break down.
It denies children of gay parents the right to maintenance, hospital visits and inheritance from their parents; in the tragic event of a biological parent dying, a child could end up in State care as his second mum or dad is seen as a legal stranger; as adults it can deny them the right to make vital medical decisions for elderly or infirm parents.

The reasons these parts are ommitted from the CP bill is simply because Gay couples are not supposed to take care of children.
To include these measures would require a referendum as the state pledges to protect the nuclear family.

jaffa20 wrote: »

In practical terms, the Civil Partnership proposal contains no details on the tax and social welfare benefits to be granted to gay and lesbian couples.
These will be dealt with in separate pieces of law. We have no way of knowing if these will be the same as, or different from those granted to straight couples. Will gay couples have to pay more tax? Will they be included in Social Welfare benefits like pension transfer? Considering the fact that the Social Welfare code has already been amended once (in 2005) to explicitly exclude gay couples from benefits granted to straight married and unmarried couples, there is little reason to hope the Government will treat gay couples equally if and when the partnership scheme becomes law.

I can't comment on what laws may or may not be passed in the future.

jaffa20 wrote: »

Really, it still seems like an agreement to keep 2nd class people happy. Also, in the case of children already fostered or cohabitating with gay couples, it offers them no rights if one of the partners in the couple dies. The child will be snatched from them because of the traditionalist view of family in ireland.

Again Gay couples ae not supposed to adopt under this law.

Iwasfrozen

Aard wrote: »

But in the context that you said it, there was no precedent for it. The only conclusion I can draw is that you believe that by ignoring homosexuality, it will go away.

Well then that is a wrong conclusion.

Iwasfrozen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not sure how that bolsters your argument, tbh.

What arguement ? I said there was no certain evidence.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What's wrong with redefining marriage for an Ireland of 2009?

I personally only reach issues when it comes to adoptive rights. That's my stumbling block. I have no issue with formalising homosexual relationships. I don't even have an issue with the blessing of civil partnerships if it is under the terms of the church.

I feel that it is the right of the child to have both a mother and a father. I've even suggested on another thread in the LGBT forum, that if someone of another gender was able to be a third parent if you will of a the child to make sure that one was raised with a solid influence of both genders in their life I would be willing to find a compromise on the parenting front.

I don't feel marriage in 2009 is all that necessary of changing if we can find a resolution as to why civil partnerships are inadequate and deal with that head on.

Aard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well then he should have said it that way, though even the above remark is still controversial.

How is it controversial? Can you definitively say that ALL straight parents (including the hookers and the junkies) are more effective parents than ALL gay parents?

anoisaris

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally only reach issues when it comes to adoptive rights. That's my stumbling block. I have no issue with formalising homosexual relationships. I don't even have an issue with the blessing of civil partnerships if it is under the terms of the church.

I feel that it is the right of the child to have both a mother and a father. I've even suggested on another thread in the LGBT forum, that if someone of another gender was able to be a third parent if you will of a the child to make sure that one was raised with a solid influence of both genders in their life I would be willing to find a compromise on the parenting front.

I don't feel marriage in 2009 is all that necessary of changing if we can find a resolution as to why civil partnerships are inadequate and deal with that head on.

Then why not 2 mothers or 2 fathers, one taking a more maternal role and one taking a more paternal role.

Aard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well then that is a wrong conclusion.

And yet you still haven't given a reason as to why you brought it up.

Iwasfrozen

Aard wrote: »

How is it controversial? Can you definitively say that ALL straight parents (including the hookers and the junkies) are more effective parents than ALL gay parents?

There are hookers and junkies on both sides. But no I wouldn't and as such those children should be put in foster homes.

jaffa20

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The reasons these parts are ommitted from the CP bill is simply because Gay couples are not supposed to take care of children.
To include these measures would require a referendum as the state pledges to protect the nuclear family.

Yes but what is ommited is the protection of the children which already are being raised by gay couples. I know a lesbian mother who coahibates with her partner. The child sees them as their parents. If the mother was to die, the other partner would not be allowed to become legal guardian of the child, irrespective of the biological mother's or child's wishes.

Nail -> Haid

@Jackass; i'm not talking about redefining marriage. You can keep your definition of marriage under the churches eyes. I'm talking about how children and their parents, foster or biological parents, will be protected because i can foster a child tomorrow and never have them exposed to a maternal intinct at home and yet i can't adopt a child with my partner because of a traditionalist view of marriage and family. Doesn't make much sense really, does it

anoisaris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There are hookers and junkies on both sides. But no I wouldn't and as such those children should be put in foster homes.

Where they can of course legally be fostered jointly by two loving people in gay relationship!

Iwasfrozen

Aard wrote: »

And yet you still haven't given a reason as to why you brought it up.

I didn't bring up anything. You saw to separate points, put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5. How can I comment on that ?

Iwasfrozen

anoisaris wrote: »

Where they can of course legally be fostered jointly by two loving people in gay relationship?

That is the law, I'm not saying I agree with it.

jaffa20

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I can't comment on what laws may or may not be passed in the future.

Then don't comment on how we have no more rights to anything more than what is under the Civil Partnerships bill please.

Ickle Magoo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What arguement ? I said there was no certain evidence.

You said

...there is still no certain evidence that homosexuality is "nature" rather than "nurture".

What you didn't say was evidence points to mostly nature with some nurture - which is what the link suggests.

philologos

anoisaris wrote: »

Then why not 2 mothers or 2 fathers, one taking a more maternal role and one taking a more paternal role.

A woman cannot effectively replace a father, a man cannot effectively replace a mother. Gender influence is important.

I've laid out my compromise, that's really as far as I can go given my viewpoint on the family, and how I value it.

Iwasfrozen

jaffa20 wrote: »

Then don't comment on how we have no more rights to anything more than what is under the Civil Partnerships bill please.

ah ah, someone seems to have mistaken "legislation" with "ideology".
I'll make it simple, Legislation is what will happen in the future,
Ideology is what should happen in the future.

ChocolateSauce

Another point I'd like to bring up is this: Assuming for a moment that having two gay parents does increase the chances of the child being gay- so what? Unless one is working under the assumption that gay is a bad thing to be, this shouldn't be relevant.

I don't think anyone would claim this would bring about a population collapse; clearly gays do want kids, and there is no shortage of them or of means to get them.

Iwasfrozen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You said



What you didn't say was evidence points to mostly nature with some nurture - which is what the link suggests.

And yet there is no certain evidence.

anoisaris

Jakkass wrote: »

A woman cannot effectively replace a father, a man cannot effectively replace a mother. Gender influence is important.

I've laid out my compromise, that's really as far as I can go given my viewpoint on the family, and how I value it.

That's just your opinion. A lot of gay people do not conform to typical gender roles for their sex. Is it not possible that a man with maternal instincts could be a great mother type as could a woman with paternal instincts be a great in a father type role? What exact behaviours/influences etc are you speaking of in terms of gender influence?

Ickle Magoo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And yet there is no certain evidence.

What point are you making please? And why?

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Another point I'd like to bring up is this: Assuming for a moment that having two gay parents does increase the chances of the child being gay- so what? Unless one is working under the assumption that gay is a bad thing to be, this shouldn't be relevant.

Who argued this? I don't think that is the motivation for my end of the argument at all.

Iwasfrozen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What point are you making please? And why?

The point I'm making is that there is no certain evidence that Homosexuality is caused by genes or is conditioned due to the childs environment.
And tbh I don't know why you keep bringing this up again.

Nerin

Im pro full rights for same sex realtionships/Unions whatever, but it think fighting for religious marriage(say a same sex couple want a christian ceremony) is silly. Its whatevers religions club. Theyve discriminated because of their beliefs for whatever reason for years, why force them into anything else?
I know you disagree with their beliefs(so do i) but why force them to act whatever way? we can critisize them, but why bother fighting them to ,for example, stop believing witches are going to hell or are handmaidens of satan or some other thing? We can educate and inform, but we cant force.
Its like making the Noc Forum regulars all go to a sunbed facility.

If same sex unions want marriage, or a blessing on their union or something, there are plenty of spiritual practicioners that could do this for them.

Now....

Jakkass wrote: »

A woman cannot effectively replace a father, a man cannot effectively replace a mother. Gender influence is important.

In all fairness to you Jakkass (i usually ask everyone that says this) what say you to me? Im better of without having a father. I wont go into specifics other than hes a tool of epic proportions.
I was raised by my mum, and im better for it.
Was it just a generalisation in this gender/sexuality specific discusssion, or does that belief go for all single parents too?

Ickle Magoo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The point I'm making is that there is no certain evidence that Homosexuality is caused by genes or is conditioned due to the childs environment.
And tbh I don't know why you keep bringing this up again.

Sorry, who suggested otherwise? Maybe I'm just a bit stupid but I'm still trying to work out why you brought it into the discussion and what your point is - spell it out to me.

For a second there I thought you were suggesting homosexuality could be an entirely environmentally learned behaviour, despite that conclusion being at odds with the link you provided, and as such shouldn't be discussed in schools but I could have it all wrong.

anoisaris

Nerin, I think most (but not all) gay people would want a civil ceremony rather than religious.

philologos

Nerin wrote: »

In all fairness to you Jakkass (i usually ask everyone that says this) what say you to me? Im better of without having a father. I wont go into specifics other than hes a tool of epic proportions.
I was raised by my mum, and im better for it.
Was it just a generalisation in this gender/sexuality specific discusssion, or does that belief go for all single parents too?

I say that in general the case is that families with a mother and a father is the best scenario for a child to be raised in. Of course there are cases when the parents are negligent. The same would be true of same sex relationships, or single parent relationships. It isn't an argument against the traditional family.

So yes, I consider a family with a mother and a father to be better in general than situations where there is only one parent. There is research to back this up too.

Nerin

anoisaris wrote: »

Nerin, I think most (but not all) gay people would want a civil ceremony rather than religious.

I know but i have heard stories of gay people throwing right strops at religions that wont give them marriage.

I mean come on, the Pope isnt going to turn around and say "hey, we think ye'll burn in hell for doing the do, but sure we'll marry ye for the craic".:D

Im only talking about those same sex couples who i think are a little crazy being annoyed at that.

I already said i fully support same sex unions being equal to other unions. And also, if memory serves me well, Jakkass has the same view.

Iwasfrozen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sorry, who suggested otherwise? Maybe I'm just a bit stupid but I'm still trying to work out why you brought it into the discussion and what your point is - spell it out to me.

For a second there I thought you were suggesting homosexuality could be an entirely environmentally learned behaviour, despite that conclusion being at odds with the link you provided, and as such shouldn't be discussed in schools but I could have it all wrong.

I brought it up in response to this post:
Originally Posted by anoisaris
And I have already said before many gay people know they are gay when they are children. Why shouldn't a child know that relationships and family units are not all solely based on opposite sex couples? Wouldn't that education reduce the risk that a child of gay parents would be bullied as some of you seem concerned with that point?

Anoisaris claims that many gay people knew they where gay when they where children. I am reminding anoisaris that there is no evidence that children can be gay.

Nerin

Jakkass wrote: »

I say that in general the case is that families with a mother and a father is the best scenario for a child to be raised in. Of course there are cases when the parents are negligent. The same would be true of same sex relationships, or single parent relationships. It isn't an argument against the traditional family.

So yes, I consider a family with a mother and a father to be better in general than situations where there is only one parent. There is research to back this up too.

I love being a spike in "research stats"

cheers for clearing that up.

anoisaris

Nerin wrote: »

I know but i have heard stories of gay people throwing right strops at religions that wont give them marriage.

I mean come on, the Pope isnt going to turn around and say "hey, we think ye'll burn in hell for doing the do, but sure we'll marry ye for the craic".:D

Im only talking about those same sex couples who i think are a little crazy being annoyed at that.

I already said i fully support same sex unions being equal to other unions. And also, if memory serves me well, Jakkass has the same view.

Can't say I have heard of many wanting a religious ceremony I would have assumed anyone using the term marriage referring to civil marriage but then you never know I suppose. I doubt Jackass agrees with your view as a union equal to marriage would include adoption.