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
Full rights for the LGBT community.
Options
Comments
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »Prejudices come BEFORE facts, and the facts are that both sexes are required, and that both male and female influences are beneficial.
You believe grandparents or whatever are enough, I don't.
Your belief does not "trump" mine.
The argument that the absence of one or other in the parental unit is detrimental is not reflected in reality as relayed through the vast majority of studies in this area.
A male/female parental mix is not shown to be any more advantageous to children according to the majority of this research.
You are entitled to your opinion and Scofflaw to his, but his is backed by more than his own feelings on the matter.0 -
Ok, this thread seems to have gone around in a bit of a twist regarding the addoption issue. Here are my reasons for opposing it.
1) I believe every child needs both female and male role models in their lives. I think the people best suited to this role are the parents. Same sex couples, buy their nature cannot fulfil this role, and sadly the childs emotional development will be lacking.
2) The society in which we live is flawed and doesn't respect differences. Its sad but its also true. It is likely that a child of a same sex couple will be bullied, or at least the difference would be made known to them. It isn't fair to intentionally place the child in the situation where it might experience emotional distress. Bullying, especially in the formative years of a persons life can have a profound effect on a childs development into adulthood.
It sounds clichéd but above all we have to think of the children. It is their life after all.0 -
oppenheimer1 wrote: »Ok, this thread seems to have gone around in a bit of a twist regarding the addoption issue. Here are my reasons for opposing it.
1) I believe every child needs both female and male role models in their lives. I think the people best suited to this role are the parents. Same sex couples, buy their nature cannot fulfil this role, and sadly the childs emotional development will be lacking.
2) The society in which we live is flawed and doesn't respect differences. Its sad but its also true. It is likely that a child of a same sex couple will be bullied, or at least the difference would be made known to them. It isn't fair to intentionally place the child in the situation where it might experience emotional distress. Bullying, especially in the formative years of a persons life can have a profound effect on a childs development into adulthood.
It sounds clichéd but above all we have to think of the children. It is their life after all.
Both your arguments have been defused a number of times through the thread.
For 1) see my last post above.
For 2), it's circular nonsense. "Gay people are discriminated against therefore we should continue to discriminate against them". Please.0 -
oppenheimer1 wrote: »1) I believe every child needs both female and male role models in their lives. I think the people best suited to this role are the parents. Same sex couples, buy their nature cannot fulfil this role, and sadly the childs emotional development will be lacking.
That's what I tried saying, and it got challenged for about 10 pages.....
Let's see how you get on......best of luck!
I wouldn't agree with you on 2, since mixed-race couples (and their children) would have at one time experienced the same objections and ridicule.
But at least they had one of each.0 -
Are you deliberately twisting my question. 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, a lamentable fact, but it also means that 50% are until death do they part. If it so happens that the vast majority (say 95%+) of same sex unions are ending in dissolution after a few years, then providing this becomes a burden on society, both in terms of denigrating the institution of marriage and a cost to the tax payer in terms of the administrative nightmare it would involve. It would be a farce.LookingFor wrote: »Wowzers. We have to meet a longevity test?
After what straight people did to the notion of 'permanent' marriage? And after straight people introduced divorce?
This argument would only be valid if the vast majority of same sex relationships are transient. Admittedly I don't know if this is the case or not. I just thought it might be a point worth raising.0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »I would respectfully request that you remove any suggestion that there is a religious dogma behind my thinking, and quite frankly if you are going to jump to such conclusions on the basis of someone disagreeing with you, it reflects badly.
I almost added that I was in no sense suggesting that you were suffering from religious dogma, but thought better of you.Liam Byrne wrote: »Prejudices come BEFORE facts, and the facts are that both sexes are required, and that both male and female influences are beneficial.
No, those are what you regard as being "facts", but they're actually just your prejudices.Liam Byrne wrote: »You believe grandparents or whatever are enough, I don't.
Your belief does not "trump" mine.
Likewise, what is civilised or natural in every other "multicellular life" is not a right or a norm for humans......like I said earlier, many animals kill for food and resources.
Er, yes. And we don't?Liam Byrne wrote: »But across nature there is negative and positive, male and female, ying and yang.....whatever you want to call it.
This is the considered basis for my gut feeling.
And we're going nowhere - particularly if I'm being equated with religious nuts - so I'm leaving it at that.
We'll just agree to disagree.
I seem to recall suggesting it some way back. However, I'll repeat the point that I didn't say you were a religious nut, or suggest that you would become one. I said that it was not uncommon amongst people who couldn't find another authoritative backing for prejudices. It explains some of the apparently contrary rise in religious fundamentalism as science advances - science has left behind those paradigms (such as 'racial' theories of humanity, or the belief that homosexuality was a form of mental disease) that allowed people to justify their gut feelings by reference to scientific authority, leaving them nowhere but religion to turn to.
Anyway, if you're sufficiently hot under the collar to believe that I've called you a religious dogmatic and a Fianna Fáil supporter, I'm inclined to agree to disagree. After all, I didn't set out to persuade you, or expect to do so.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The kid won't catch the gays of their same-sex parents: if they did, there'd be no gay people, as everyone would just like the other sex like their parents. Think about it: it makes sense.
To hell with their rights: the kid will go through hell for the first couple of years so that his parents can feel they have more rights?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
I'm against same sex couples getting children by any means as it'll be the child who'll get tormented.
What's the difference between a white man and a black woman adopting a baby, and two gays adopting a baby? Modern mentality won't be that harsh on the kid for being from a mixed race family, but modern mentality will be harsh against the kid of the gay couple.
Hoping within the next 20 to 50 years this changes, and will allow kids to grow up without too much harressment for having same-sex parents.
A tiny minority can f**k up a lot of peoples lives.Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »would only affect a tiny minority of the high risk group profile.
For whomever think men who had sex with other men should give blood: get the law passed, and if one person gets AIDs from blood, it'll set back gay rights a few decades. And here's the kicker: I said "from blood", and not "from a man who had sex with other men".0 -
LookingFor wrote: »Both your arguments have been defused a number of times through the thread.
For 1) see my last post above.
For 2), it's circular nonsense. "Gay people are discriminated against therefore we should continue to discriminate against them". Please.
Yes it is circular, but should we be using children to break the cycle of prejudice? Its an experiment I would be wary of undertaking.
The fact that prejudice exists against homosexuals exists, It isn't right but its there. You have to wonder if these gay couples are more interested in the advancement of their "cause" rather than the welfare of the child at all...0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »That's what I tried saying, and it got challenged for about 10 pages.....
Let's see how you get on......best of luck!
I wouldn't agree with you on 2, since mixed-race couples (and their children) would have at one time experienced the same objections and ridicule.
But at least they had one of each.
Thankfully though society has matured to accept mixed race couples. Perhaps in future society will be more willing to accept the idea of same sex couples. Maybe then we could look again at the idea of gay adoption...
That said I probably be still wary of it due to point 1.0 -
oppenheimer1 wrote: »Are you deliberately twisting my question. 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, a lamentable fact, but it also means that 50% are until death do they part. If it so happens that the vast majority (say 95%+) of same sex unions are ending in dissolution after a few years, then providing this becomes a burden on society, both in terms of denigrating the institution of marriage and a cost to the tax payer in terms of the administrative nightmare it would involve. It would be a farce.
I'm just puzzled why you suggest it. It seems based on a lot of stereotyping.
We don't have data in most countries over a long enough period to really 'see', but in Denmark, for example, where gay people have been able to marry since 1989 the homosexual divorce rate is 17% compared to a heterosexual divorce rate of 47%.
In Norway/Sweden between 1993 and 1999, 7.8% of the male-male partnerships in that period ended in divorce, 8.0% of male-female partnerships and 11% of female-female.
(Interestingly, perhaps contrary to stereotype, male-male relationships there are also a lot more stable than female-female in both Denmark and Sweden/Norway, with male-male partnerships more stable than both).
Perhaps if your gut feelings are wrong on the stability of homosexual partnerships, you may be willing revise your gut feelings on other matters where the evidence also proves contrary.oppenheimer1 wrote: »Yes it is circular, but should we be using children to break the cycle of prejudice? Its an experiment I would be wary of undertaking.
No, we should break the cycle of prejudice by starting at a state level to end prejudice against gay people. This isn't just simply about the children of gay couples either, it's about gay children themselves, and gay people in general, and the **** they have to put up with because of the attitudes of others. If 'sanction' for those attitudes, implicit or otherwise, is given by the state - and it is - then that needs to be stopped.
Your argument, by the way, applies to all sorts of people. Kids of different race still suffer bullying. Ginger kids suffer bullying. We don't place the onus on keeping those kids out of harm on their parents by saying they shouldn't have kids, we stamp out - or try to - the conditions that give rise to that bullying in the first place. So it should be with bullying related to homosexuality.0 -
Advertisement
-
Children will always find something to make fun of their peers, for.
Should we examine and restrict every group of people on the basis that their children might be bullied?0 -
LookingFor wrote: »I'm just puzzled why you suggest it. It seems based on a lot of stereotyping.
We don't have data in most countries over a long enough period to really 'see', but in Denmark, for example, where gay people have been able to marry since 1989 the homosexual divorce rate is 17% compared to a heterosexual divorce rate of 47%.
In Norway/Sweden between 1993 and 1999, 7.8% of the male-male partnerships in that period ended in divorce, 8.0% of male-female partnerships and 11% of female-female.
(Interestingly, perhaps contrary to stereotype, male-male relationships there are also a lot more stable than female-female in both Denmark and Sweden/Norway, with male-male partnerships more stable than both).
Perhaps if your gut feelings are wrong on the stability of homosexual partnerships, you may be willing revise your gut feelings on other matters where the evidence also proves contrary.
It is a stereotype that homosexual relationships are transient. I was atually wondering if it were actually the case. Incidentally I have no problem with Civil partnership/marriage, as what ever two people get up to is their business. Indeed if you've lived and loved someone your whole life it seems cruel not to grant them inheritance and next of kin rights whatever the gender/orientation.
I do have a problem introducung innocent third parties, such as adopted children, into the equation however. Especially if there is even a slight risk they may be damaged by it.0 -
LookingFor wrote: »
No, we should break the cycle of prejudice by starting at a state level to end prejudice against gay people. This isn't just simply about the children of gay couples either, it's about gay children themselves, and gay people in general, and the **** they have to put up with because of the attitudes of others. If 'sanction' for those attitudes, implicit or otherwise, is given by the state - and it is - then that needs to be stopped.
Your argument, by the way, applies to all sorts of people. Kids of different race still suffer bullying. Ginger kids suffer bullying. We don't place the onus on keeping those kids out of harm on their parents by saying they shouldn't have kids, we stamp out - or try to - the conditions that give rise to that bullying in the first place. So it should be with bullying related to homosexuality.
Yes it is attitudes that need to change, however I don't think it is the States business. It has done all it can in terms of granting equality into, lets face it, a generally conservative Irish society. The State, while having a duty to protect minorities, is of the people, by the people, and operates by the wishes of the majority of its citizens.
Yes children are bullied for all sorts of reasons, be it the colour of their hair, wearing glasses, braces etc. Children can be incredibly cruel (as can adults, as many gay people will have experienced) bullying can be incessant and should be stamped out at all levels. Not until there is greater acceptance of gay couples in society should children be even considered of being brought into the equation. Other means should be used to break down the barriers of prejudice. Deliberately placing children in this situation, when no good reason other than to placate a vocal minority, isn't good enough. Not allowing to adopt is not a positive feedback loop of discrimination.0 -
oppenheimer1 wrote: »It is a stereotype that homosexual
relationships are transient. I was atually wondering if it were actually the case.
Well we now we know, at least as far as married gay couples go.
In light of this, the arguments elsewhere, particularly in the state's about 'protecting' marriage and so on seem even more ludicrous. If anything marriage seems to have found new life as something that actually has meaning, among gay people.oppenheimer1 wrote: »I do have a problem introducung innocent third parties, such as adopted children, into the equation however. Especially if there is even a slight risk they may be damaged by it.
Again, what of children already being raised by gay couples? There's no 'introduction', they are there, and it is in their welfare and interests that both parents who raised them have rights and responsibilities towards them. Ask them - or at least the ones who've reached maturity and who can speak for themselves as adults - what they want and need and you will see that.
And again, fear-mongering about gay people raising children is not supported by the research that's out there.oppenheimer1 wrote: »Yes it is attitudes that need to change, however I don't think it is the States business.
It absolutely has a role.
As long as any state maintains inequality against a group, that inequality is a foundation stone upon which broader 'cultural' prejudice is built. Take it away, and the authority that this prejudice had is weakened. Among minority groups and their struggles for acceptance the state and the law has typically played a key role. If the state gives people any lee-way to be cruel little twats particularly wrt a minority group, unfortunately a significant proportion of people take gleeful advantage. (You can see that in a very large scale historically in Nazi Germany, all the way down on the smaller scale to that story I posted earlier about the treatment an elderly gay couple in the states received by the authorities. Don't tell me 'the state' hasn't a role in influencing society and societal norms for good or ill!).oppenheimer1 wrote: »It has done all it can in terms of granting equality into, lets face it, a generally conservative Irish society.
I do not think it has.oppenheimer1 wrote: »Not until there is greater acceptance of gay couples in society should children be even considered of being brought into the equation. Other means should be used to break down the barriers of prejudice. Deliberately placing children in this situation, when no good reason other than to placate a vocal minority, isn't good enough. Not allowing to adopt is not a positive feedback loop of discrimination.
Yes it is!
You are sending the message that gay people are not fit to parent!
This enhances prejudice against gay people! How could it do otherwise? If you're not fit to parent - moreover, not fit to be even considered as a potential parent - there's something wrong with you. People ask why you're not. People - in the absence of familiarity with any gay people, let alone gay parents - revert to stereotypes and nasty lies.
You are also ignoring the children ALREADY THERE who are being parented by gay people, and the messages that your stance sends to those kids and their peers about the acceptability or validity of gay parents, of their parents and of their family. You are saying 'YOUR family is not as good as THAT family'.
The state has to help get the ball rolling on acceptance by standing up and saying, 'this is OK' and to not maintain a status quo that puts a question mark over gay people and that consolidates or even promotes attitudes among some people about gay people.0 -
The bullying argument is bull****, - on that basis we should allow people with strange jobs or people in wheelchairs or dwarfs or people who wear glasses or people with funny names adopt because the adopted child will be bullied on the basis of their parents job, inability to walk, height, facial wear or name
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 -
My god this argument about bullying is a weak one. 'You cant adopt because other people are assholes!'. What about two redheaded parents. They will knowingly be giving birth to a redhead, how dare they! 'Ginger' kids are bullied openly by all levels of society, they are considered fair game even by adults. Should we sterilise redheads so they cant bring kids into the world for the sake of the kids?oppenheimer1 wrote: »Not until there is greater acceptance of gay couples redheads in society should children be even considered of being brought into the equation. Other means should be used to break down the barriers of prejudice.
www.jlowman.com/Gingerkids.htm0 -
-
What is it defined as in the Constitution?
The entire article to do with marriage and the family is Article 41:The Family
Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.
3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.
As you can see, nowhere does it strictly say that marriage shall only be between a man and a woman.
That said, in the High Court case Zappone and Gilligan v Revenue Commissioners, which involved two lesbians who got married in Canada and wanted their marriage recognised for tax purposes, the judge (Dunne) rejected their claim that they could be recognised as married by the tax authorities. He ruled that the constitutional definition of marriage was restricted to heterosexual couples because that's what the people in 1937 would have intended (this is called a historicist approach). Indeed, the judge said that while the Constitution is capable of "evolving" (i.e. he could interpret it to allow same-sex marriage), he didn't believe there was a "consensus" to change the definition (one of the arguments of the couple). Bear in mind this was back in 2006; nowadays there is clearly much more support for such a move.
The case is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court, and a judgment is expected later this year. The court may cement the verdict given in the High Court, or it may adopt a more modern approach and say same-sex marriage is allowed, or even required (the South African Constitutional Court did this).
Regarding the Constitutional rights of the "family", this has been interpreted as the family based on marriage only. That is not to say that the Oireachtas cannot pass legislation giving non-marital families the same rights (for instance by granting automatic rights to unmarried fathers as has been suggested numerous times), though if we allowed same-sex marriage than such families would be equal to opposite-sex marriages under the Constitution.0 -
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.
It's not the State that's stopping you marrying or adopting.
It's the Church and private adoption agencies.
Take it up with them.
I think it's quite obvious that the State if anything is very much pro-Gay and is doing everything it can to encourage and actively support the Gay communities....0 -
It's not the State that's stopping you marrying or adopting.
It's the Church and private adoption agencies.
Take it up with them.
I think it's quite obvious that the State if anything is very much pro-Gay and is doing everything it can to encourage and actively support the Gay communities....
So a gay couple can walk into a regitry office and get married?
Really?0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes it is the state, unless we've somehow moved to a theocracy when I wasn't looking.It's not the State that's stopping you marrying or adopting.
It's the Church and private adoption agencies.
I certainly don't think it's obvious given the length of time it took for a civil partnership bill to even appear and the manner in which it's being dealt with.I think it's quite obvious that the State if anything is very much pro-Gay and is doing everything it can to encourage and actively support the Gay communities....0 -
Laminations wrote: »Should we sterilise redheads so they cant bring kids into the world for the sake of the kids?
Yes.0 -
Is the Gay community willing to give equal rights to both biological parents in cases where there is a donor of sperm/ eggs ?
And will the Gay community recognise and respect the rigts of the child to the presence in its life of both biological parents ?
Or does it feel that the ' rights' of a gay couple are greater than the inherent right of a child to the presence of both biological parents - yes I know that this can be asked of donors for hetrosexual couples as well.0 -
Is the Gay community willing to give equal rights to both biological parents in cases where there is a donor of sperm/ eggs ?
And will the Gay community recognise and respect the rigts of the child to the presence in its life of both biological parents ?
Or does it feel that the ' rights' of a gay couple are greater than the inherent right of a child to the presence of both biological parents - yes I know that this can be asked of donors for hetrosexual couples as well.
This isn't a specifically 'gay' problem as you note yourself.
There's already systems in place covering this, and would apply for gay couples as for straight. I've a rough idea how it works for step-parent adoption, but I'm less enlightened wrt anonymous donation and what mechanisms are or aren't in place for children conceived via donation to find their donor parent.0 -
LookingFor wrote: »Well we now we know, at least as far as married gay couples go.
In light of this, the arguments elsewhere, particularly in the state's about 'protecting' marriage and so on seem even more ludicrous. If anything marriage seems to have found new life as something that actually has meaning, among gay people.
Again, what of children already being raised by gay couples? There's no 'introduction', they are there, and it is in their welfare and interests that both parents who raised them have rights and responsibilities towards them. Ask them - or at least the ones who've reached maturity and who can speak for themselves as adults - what they want and need and you will see that.
And again, fear-mongering about gay people raising children is not supported by the research that's out there.
It absolutely has a role.
As long as any state maintains inequality against a group, that inequality is a foundation stone upon which broader 'cultural' prejudice is built. Take it away, and the authority that this prejudice had is weakened. Among minority groups and their struggles for acceptance the state and the law has typically played a key role. If the state gives people any lee-way to be cruel little twats particularly wrt a minority group, unfortunately a significant proportion of people take gleeful advantage. (You can see that in a very large scale historically in Nazi Germany, all the way down on the smaller scale to that story I posted earlier about the treatment an elderly gay couple in the states received by the authorities. Don't tell me 'the state' hasn't a role in influencing society and societal norms for good or ill!).
Introducing the Nazis means you automatically lose the debate. Thanks.The bullying argument is bull****, - on that basis we should allow people with strange jobs or people in wheelchairs or dwarfs or people who wear glasses or people with funny names adopt because the adopted child will be bullied on the basis of their parents job, inability to walk, height, facial wear or nameLaminations wrote: »My god this argument about bullying is a weak one. 'You cant adopt because other people are assholes!'. What about two redheaded parents. They will knowingly be giving birth to a redhead, how dare they! 'Ginger' kids are bullied openly by all levels of society, they are considered fair game even by adults. Should we sterilise redheads so they cant bring kids into the world for the sake of the kids?
www.jlowman.com/Gingerkids.htm
The fact that you do not seem to care about the bullying issue, highlights perfectly what this debate is really all about. Adoption should always be in the best interests of the child, yet here we have a group that seem to want to disregard the the effect bullying could have. This because it doesn't fit with their agenda.
There is no shortage of heterosexual couples willing to adopt in Ireland, so its not as if we need Gay couples to take up the slack. The system of adoption has worked wekk so far, it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.
So answer this, who is the adoption of a child ultimately benefit? The gay parents who have advanced their cause, or the emotionally distressed child?
Its all about homosexuals and their "rights" not those of the children.0 -
oppenheimer1 wrote: »Introducing the Nazis means you automatically lose the debate. Thanks.
It's a perfectly reasonable example in the context of my point. I'm not comparing it to anything or equating it with anything, I'm pointing it out as a very extreme example of the control the state can have over societal norms and culture.
You say the state has no role to play in influencing cultural acceptance of minority groups, or cannot influence that - but common sense and history show otherwise, both positively and negatively (as in the above example). That was the extent of my use of that example.0 -
This thread is disappointing overall.0
-
oppenheimer1 wrote: »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.
It's not reasonable if you apply for something that requires a birth cert. That kind of gives the game away, you know?
It's most likely transgendered people are transgendered from birth too, so it's not exactly lying. The best of our scientific knowledge says it's likely transgenderism and sexuality are hardwired.0 -
Introducing the Nazis means you automatically lose the debate. Thanks.
No it doesn't. What the hell. That's horrible logic. Please show me the logical fallacy that governs this?
Protip: Godwin's law is an observation; not something you invoke.0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »I would respectfully request that you remove any suggestion that there is a religious dogma behind my thinking, and quite frankly if you are going to jump to such conclusions on the basis of someone disagreeing with you, it reflects badly.
Prejudices come BEFORE facts, and the facts are that both sexes are required, and that both male and female influences are beneficial.
You believe grandparents or whatever are enough, I don't.
Your belief does not "trump" mine.
Likewise, what is civilised or natural in every other "multicellular life" is not a right or a norm for humans......like I said earlier, many animals kill for food and resources.
But across nature there is negative and positive, male and female, ying and yang.....whatever you want to call it.
This is the considered basis for my gut feeling.
And we're going nowhere - particularly if I'm being equated with religious nuts - so I'm leaving it at that.
We'll just agree to disagree.
Unfortunately; the Naturalistic fallacy is not a basis for an argument, and the rampant existence of homosexuality in nature also. We do thousands of "unnatural" things every day. How can you even define what is "Unnatural" for humans? Until we reprogram ourselves we're still acting in our nature. And even then you could say it's in our nature to do so, and we redefine ourselves in ways expected of our nature.
It's also annoying because a lot of the people against homosexuality are more generally "unnatural"; with their global warming denial and general BS.
Being homophobic and not religious just means you lose an excuse for being homophobic.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement