Full rights for the LGBT community.

Pride Fighter

Currently on RTE there is a show on called growing up gay. This is an excellent first step on the road to equal rights for people in the LGBT community.

However there is a lack of political will on behalf of most political parties to give them equal rights. Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children. Surely it is about time we grow up as a nation and do not discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation.

Iwasfrozen

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Currently on RTE there is a show on called growing up gay. This is an excellent first step on the road to equal rights for people in the LGBT community.

However there is a lack of political will on behalf of most political parties to give them equal rights. Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children. Surely it is about time we grow up as a nation and do not discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation.

For the last time. Gay people are not discriminated against, they are not second class citizens. They have the same rights to marraige and adoption as hetrosexual people.

There is no nor ever was a law saying homosexual people cannot marry and/or adopt.

Sulmac

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For the last time. Gay people are not discriminated against, they are not second class citizens. They have the same rights to marraige and adoption as hetrosexual people.

There is no nor ever was a law saying homosexual people cannot marry and/or adopt.

Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.

Gay people are discriminated against in a number of ways; gay men can't donate blood (a hangover from the AIDS crisis in the 1980s), gay couples can't adopt (single gays can, as can unmarried straight couples) and they cannot marry each other.

Although marriage isn't strictly defined as between a man and a woman in the Constitution, it has been interpreted as such (although this may change with the expected Zappone Supreme Court case verdict due this year). Furthermore, the Civil Registration Act 2004 defines marriage as between a man and woman only.

Gay teachers can also be fired simply for being gay ("ethos" and all that shite), under Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act (an ironic clause, I think you'll agree). Transexuals also have no right to change their legal gender, despite this being contrary to EU law (the Foy case).

Also, OP, as far as I'm aware attitudes are changing within all parties to the issue. Sinn Féin, the Greens and Labour have always been vocal on LGBT rights, and Ógra Fianna Fáil recently came out with their "Marriage Equality" document which would deal with all the issues I've outlined above. Even some elements within Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are progressing.

Iwasfrozen

Sulmac wrote: »

Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.

I was being pedantic.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sulmac wrote: »

Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.

Although marriage isn't strictly defined as between a man and a woman in the Constitution, it has been interpreted as such (although this may change with the expected Zappone Supreme Court case verdict due this year). Furthermore, the Civil Registration Act 2004 defines marriage as between a man and woman only.

Agree here. Law should be changed so that one can marry someone of the same sex.

Gay people are discriminated against in a number of ways; gay men can't donate blood (a hangover from the AIDS crisis in the 1980s),

Completely disagree here. First of all what you said is untrue. Gay men who have not taken part in a homosexual act can donate. Gay women who have taken part in a homosexual act can donate. Its nothing to do with sexuality. I am straight but if I took part in a sexual act with another man for porn/prostitution/was raped I would be banned.

Its for medical reasons. Although sexually active gay men make up less than 5% of the population, over 20% of recorded HIV cases in 2007 were from men having sex with men. The transmission rate is far too high to risk allowing their blood into the system.

Its not just gay men. Bodybuilders who are highly likely to get clean needles for steroids are banned. Virgins from sub-saharan Africa are banned etc.

Gay teachers can also be fired simply for being gay ("ethos" and all that shite), under Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act (an ironic clause, I think you'll agree). Transexuals also have no right to change their legal gender, despite this being contrary to EU law (the Foy case).

Once again agree here this is insane.

oppenheimer1

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Currently on RTE there is a show on called growing up gay. This is an excellent first step on the road to equal rights for people in the LGBT community.

However there is a lack of political will on behalf of most political parties to give them equal rights. Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children. Surely it is about time we grow up as a nation and do not discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation.

What rights are gay people denied?

Sulmac

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Completely disagree here. First of all what you said is untrue. Gay men who have not taken part in a homosexual act can donate. Gay women who have taken part in a homosexual act can donate. Its nothing to do with sexuality. I am straight but if I took part in a sexual act with another man for porn/prostitution/was raped I would be banned.

Its for medical reasons. Although sexually active gay men make up less than 5% of the population, over 20% of recorded HIV cases in 2007 were from men having sex with men. The transmission rate is far too high to risk allowing their blood into the system.

Its not just gay men. Bodybuilders who are highly likely to get clean needles for steroids are banned. Virgins from sub-saharan Africa are banned etc.

Well, I meant men who have had sex with men. Although 20% of (diagnosed) HIV cases happen to be such men, I think a blanket ban is just stupid and clearly discriminatory. They should adopt what Ógra Fianna Fáil suggested and instead have a different definition of "risk"; such as steroid users (like you mentioned), drug abusers, or anyone who has unprotected sexual intercourse with many partners (heterosexual or homosexual), etc. I'm not 100% sure, but I think Italy does this. If they have good screening processes, anyone should be allowed to donate.

Denerick

I would say that the remaining legal restrictions people go on about with regards to homosexuals are overstated - there aren't that many, and the protest about the ban on blood donations is slightly hysterical.

What the LGBT community needs to tackle is CULTURAL discrimination. Personally I think this could be moved a lot further if certain gay people stopped creating a 'culture' based around a sexuality, a counter-productive development which only alienates those who aren't particularly interested in flowery displays of public affection.

Just a thought. Few educated people care about where someone likes to put their genitals, but this manifestation of a 'gay' culture is counter productive to say the least.

oppenheimer1

Sulmac wrote: »

Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.

Gay people are discriminated against in a number of ways; gay men can't donate blood (a hangover from the AIDS crisis in the 1980s), gay couples can't adopt (single gays can, as can unmarried straight couples) and they cannot marry each other.

Although marriage isn't strictly defined as between a man and a woman in the Constitution, it has been interpreted as such (although this may change with the expected Zappone Supreme Court case verdict due this year). Furthermore, the Civil Registration Act 2004 defines marriage as between a man and woman only.

Gay teachers can also be fired simply for being gay ("ethos" and all that ****e), under Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act (an ironic clause, I think you'll agree). Transexuals also have no right to change their legal gender, despite this being contrary to EU law (the Foy case).

Also, OP, as far as I'm aware attitudes are changing within all parties to the issue. Sinn Féin, the Greens and Labour have always been vocal on LGBT rights, and Ógra Fianna Fáil recently came out with their "Marriage Equality" document which would deal with all the issues I've outlined above. Even some elements within Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are progressing.

Was the Foy case not about a transgendered dentist wanting to get their birth certificate to say that he was born female? The argument was that a birth certificate was a statement of fact at an event (the event being the persons birth) and operations subsequent to that event cannot change the fact that the person was male at the time of birth. Reasonable enough imo. For instance if I was born with some condition and this was recorded on the certificate, if I were subsequently to be cured I don't think it would be right to change the certificate. Similarly for gender.

Denerick

I should probably add that I think having a gay identity is rather silly and un-necessarily divisive. Take that Welsh rugby player who came out recently and begged not to be known as the 'gay' rugby player.

Liam Byrne

I would agree with a fair amount that the OP posted, but I would question their definition of "full rights".

Adoption is one of those, because by nature they can't have kids, and I cannot help thinking that there's a reason - in nature - for this.

On all other "equality" issues, no problem.

I do also think that this should go both ways, and that - as Denerick pointed out re the "Pride" Fighter username - equality shouldn't be divisive; if there was a "straight people's parade" some day then there would be screams of discrimination.

If sexuality is a "non-issue" then it should be a "non-issue" in both directions.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Adoption is one of those, because by nature they can't have kids, and I cannot help thinking that there's a reason - in nature - for this.

That argument also applies to many heterosexual couples, so one should either drop it, or follow it through to its logical conclusion, and refuse to allow heterosexual couples who cannot conceive to adopt. Also, men cannot naturally feed babies - perhaps bottled milk should be made illegal?

There is of course a reason - in nature - why two men cannot conceive together. It's because they both have the same half of the reproductive apparatus.

amused,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sulmac wrote: »

Well, I meant men who have had sex with men.

Thats what stops it from being discriminatory based on sexuality. As I pointed out a straight guy who works in gay porn is banned. A gay virgin isn't.

Although 20% of (diagnosed) HIV cases happen to be such men, I think a blanket ban is just stupid and clearly discriminatory.

When you're risking other people's HIV/HTLV/Hepatitis status you have to be very careful. As I pointed out its discrimnating against an activity, not a sexuality.

They should adopt what Ógra Fianna Fáil suggested and instead have a different definition of "risk"; such as steroid users (like you mentioned), drug abusers, or anyone who has unprotected sexual intercourse with many partners (heterosexual or homosexual), etc.

Why should they? Why are steroid users a high risk when they have easy access to safe needles and aren't off their faces from psychotropic drugs like heroin users?

You'd also be cutting out suitable donors. Men who have multiple female partners aren't high risk for blood borne infections. They're high risk for genital warts/chlamydia but these infections are irrelevant to blood donors. You don't seem to be aware a man would be far more likely to catch HIV/Hepatitis from an infected male than an infected female.

Also, no-one has a right to donate blood. Blood transfusion boards on the other hand have every right to choose who they accept blood from.

not 100% sure, but I think Italy does this. If they have good screening processes, anyone should be allowed to donate.

There's always good screening processes in a country like Ireland. Its the fact that human error is possible that they use all reasonable means to keep high risk category donors out of the system.

PeakOutput

they should definitely be allowed marry and they should more than likely be allowed adopt

im a little less sure on the adoption because threw no fault of their own having two parents of the same sex may adversely affect a child and i dont know enough about it

steelcityblues

I think a small group of people want to over-politicise homosexuality, even after the obvious progess that has been made in the last couple of decades.

It is an important issue, but in a time of health crisis, banking scandals, child sex abuse revelations, emigration, some LGBT campaigners sometimes fail to realise that their concerns are not foremost in the minds of a large chunk of the population!

spurious

PeakOutput wrote: »

im a little less sure on the adoption because threw no fault of their own having two parents of the same sex may adversely affect a child and i dont know enough about it

All studies show this is not true.
There is no 'may' about it.
It does not adversely affect a child, in fact quite the opposite.

Scofflaw

PeakOutput wrote: »

they should definitely be allowed marry and they should more than likely be allowed adopt

im a little less sure on the adoption because threw no fault of their own having two parents of the same sex may adversely affect a child and i dont know enough about it

Again, there are plenty of cases where having two parents of opposite sexes adversely affects the child. It tends to depend on the parents, and the child.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think a small group of people want to over-politicise homosexuality, even after the obvious progess that has been made in the last couple of decades.

It is an important issue, but in a time of health crisis, banking scandals, child sex abuse revelations, emigration, some LGBT campaigners sometimes fail to realise that their concerns are not foremost in the minds of a large chunk of the population!

In a way that shows how it needs to be politicised. I mean your basic message there is "we'll deal with your rights when everything else is sorted" LGB are a minority at 10% but remember Blacks only make up 13% of the US population.

I'd disagree this is something that can be put to one side for now.

steelcityblues

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

LGB are a minority at 10% but remember Blacks only make up 13% of the US population.

I'd disagree this is something that can be put to one side for now.

Bit of a silly comparison. This country's prisons aren't exactly filled with gay people, like they are with black people in the States

Bottle_of_Smoke

steelcityblues wrote: »

Bit of a silly comparison. This country's prisons aren't exactly filled with gay people, like they are with black people in the States

Lol, take it you've never seen what goes on in prison

Jokes aside not quite the point I'm trying to make. If black couples weren't allowed to marry, adopt or could get fired for ethos reasons there'd justifiably be outrage/riots. Whilst I admit LGB rights are slightly more complicated, I don't see that as a reason to demote the issue

steelcityblues

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Lol, take it you've never seen what goes on in prison

Jokes aside not quite the point I'm trying to make. If black couples weren't allowed to marry, adopt or could get fired for ethos reasons there'd justifiably be outrage/riots. Whilst I admit LGB rights are slightly more complicated, I don't see that as a reason to demote the issue

BTW, i think mainly none of the above should be interfered with or legislated by government. After nearly 100 years, our lot that we elect hardly know best:rolleyes:

As regards firing, what if maybe a gay person uses his/her sexuality to blame the boss for their sacking, even if evidence to the contrary shows no prejudice? Opens up a few problems

Well, we know WHY most of those chaps do what they do in prison, but lets not go further there:D

Dannyboy83

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its not just gay men. Bodybuilders who are highly likely to get clean needles for steroids are banned.

Slightly O/T, while fear of septicaemia may be a contributing factor, the primary reason is the alteration of the blood profiles; red/white blood cell ratios, altered lipid profiles, HDL/LDL etc.
This applies to burn victims prescribed anabolic steroids in a controlled medical environment, HRT users etc.
Don't know the position with regard to corticosteroids but I imagine it's the same.

Apparently one of the reasons for the reduction in fertility, falling sperm count/motility and increasing abnormalities, increased obesity and gynecomastia etc. is due to pollution of our water supplies.
Women using the contraceptive pill excrete high amount of oestrogen into our water supply, user of antibiotics and various medicines excrete massive amounts of pollutants which are never adequately filtered out.
Not hard to believe when we remember what went on in the West recently with their water supplies.

Combine that with a population which drinks heavily (alcohol can suppress testosterone production) and you end up with a hormonally haywire male population.

Back On topic.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

That argument also applies to many heterosexual couples, so one should either drop it, or follow it through to its logical conclusion, and refuse to allow heterosexual couples who cannot conceive to adopt.

I accept and understand what you're saying, but bear this one in mind....that when it's two heterosexual couples it means there's a "flaw" somewhere, and flaws - such as a dodgy heart or a deformed limb - are, where possible, "fixed" or compensated for.

Homosexuality is not a "flaw" - or at least, any time that it is suggested by some that it is, then it's hotly disputed.

I don't know, so therefore I'll accept the views of those involved rather than those who simply have an opinion, and therefore I'll accept that it's not a "flaw"......therefore the same rules for fixing / compensating cannot be applied.

Dr. Baltar

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I have this debate so many times on the internet, so please allow me to simply post the majority of my arguments as to why I believe same-sex adoption should be legal.

1. A number of surveys have been carried out in numerous countries investigating the effects that same sex parents have on a child and (I recall a Canadian study) most seem to find that the children get on equally as well as children of heterosexual parents.
Can't seem to find that beautiful Canadian study so here's an info page instead: http://www.colage.org/resources/facts.htm


2. "Gays shouldn't have kids because the children will be bullied" - Then by all means let's hide away our Down Syndrome children, our travelling children and our black children because oh my! they might be bullied too! The majority of kids are bullied at some stage anyway.

3. It is better to have gay parents than no parents!
Just watch this video and look what happens to kids in China if they're not adopted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94trCVCrLo If that's not a reason for gays to adopt them, then I don't know what is!


"But the kids will grow up gay"

Can I convince you to be sexually attracted to a guy? No! You're born like that. My parents are straight, that didn't make me grow up to be straight. You're born on one side of the fence or the other (or you might have splinters in your ass like I do from sitting on it) and that's a result of nature, not nurture.

That's some copypasta of my arguments for Gay Adoption.

As for gay marriage, I see of absolutely no reason whatsoever why Civil Marriage isn't in this country, but I do beliee we need to respect the rights of religious orders and we should not force them to allow gay marriage in the churches.

As for the blood donation issue. I do understand the medical concern regarding that issue, but surely if each batch of blood is screened there isn't a problem? If one of your relatives was in a car crash I'm sure you'd be crying out for my blood. I'm crying out to give you that blood (at a time of shortage) and because of my sexuality it won't be accepted.

oppenheimer1

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

That's some copypasta of my arguments for Gay Adoption.

As for gay marriage, I see of absolutely no reason whatsoever why Civil Marriage isn't in this country, but I do beliee we need to respect the rights of religious orders and we should not force them to allow gay marriage in the churches.

As for the blood donation issue. I do understand the medical concern regarding that issue, but surely if each batch of blood is screened there isn't a problem? If one of your relatives was in a car crash I'm sure you'd be crying out for my blood. I'm crying out to give you that blood (at a time of shortage) and because of my sexuality it won't be accepted.

There is no discrimination for blood donation based on sexuality.

Dr. Baltar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There is no discrimination for blood donation based on sexuality.

It is discriminatory against all MSMs.

steelcityblues

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

It is discriminatory against all MSMs.

In other words: 'ciosets':cool:

steelcityblues

Sorry, meant 'closets'. I'm getting tired!

Dr. Baltar

steelcityblues wrote: »

In other words: 'ciosets':cool:

I'm not familiar with the term 'ciosets' (unless it's a typo of closets).
I've googled to no avail. Could you enlighten me?

EDIT: - As a bisexual male. I have had sexual experiences with straight males who were meerly 'experimenting'. One does not need to be gay or even bisexual to have sex with someone of the same gender.

Liam Byrne

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

One does not need to be gay or even bisexual to have sex with someone of the same gender.

One only needs to experiment if one is not sure.

steelcityblues

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the term 'ciosets' (unless it's a typo of closets).
I've googled to no avail. Could you enlighten me?

EDIT: - As a bisexual male. I have had sexual experiences with straight males who were meerly 'experimenting'. One does not need to be gay or even bisexual to have sex with someone of the same gender.

What colour is the sun out there?