Full rights for the LGBT community.

oppenheimer1

Sandvich wrote: »

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.

Your birth cert states your sex, not your gender. No matter how hard you try you cannot change your sex. Its hardwired into your chromasomes.

oppenheimer1

Sandvich wrote: »

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.

Disliking the idea of homosexual adoption doesn't make him homophobic.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

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.

I care about that bullying, but it's precisely because I care that I want to attack its root causes. I think you'll find gay people have a particular abhorrence for bullying given many of their own individual experiences, so to suggest gay people don't care is highly insulting.

You are proposing we:

1) leave the twats to eventually - somehow, magically - lose the prejudice and attitudes that lead to their bullying of other people

2) punish gay parents and their children for the bullying perpetrated by others by withholding consideration of the parents as potential adoptive parents, and leaving the kids' legal status with respect to both parents in limbo.

In other words, you ask effectively for a maintenance of the status quo, and you know damn well that's what the result of your approach is.

Not to mention the fragile basis of this argument in the first place, as others have already pointed out, and how it can be applied to many kinds of parents in so many different situations. Which you continue to ignore.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

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 pool of potential adoptive parents would be no worse off for being larger.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The system of adoption has worked wekk so far, it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.

It doesn't work for gay couples and their children.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

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.

Absolute horse ****. You keep ignoring the points raised by others. Including, for example, AGAIN, the children who are already being raised by gay couples, and the advancement of their welfare by legally binding both parents to them. Don't deign to think you know what someone like Daragh or Conor Prenderghast want or need, or what is in their welfare. They're telling you and you are ignoring them. Sheer arrogance.

Others in this thread have painstakingly tried to address all of the points you raise, yet you just cherry pick things to hop on ('nazism', 'omg-gays-don't-care-about-bullying') and ignore every other issue raised because it doesn't suit your argument. It is difficult to take you seriously if you continue to do that.

oppenheimer1

LookingFor wrote: »

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.

And my point is that the State is a function of society as a whole. Discrimination should be tackled at a societal level rather than the "State" level. This will have a trickle down effect and formulate real change, rather than a superficial imposed "equality".

You have nicely pointed out what can happen when a group assumes control of a State and imposes its values on its citizens.

What are positive and negative influences on society are entirely subjective by the way.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And my point is that the State is a function of society as a whole. Discrimination should be tackled at a societal level rather than the "State" level.

It needs to be tackled at both levels, and the latter has undoubtedly an impact on the former.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This will have a trickle down effect and formulate real change, rather than a superficial imposed "equality".

Legislating for equality is not a superficiality. It has real consequences for real lives. Even if there was zero effect on cultural equality it is a massive boon to have the State recognise your equality for a variety of very important reasons. And that state recognition often does precede a broader or overwhelming cultural acceptance.

As long as the State does not respect the equality of a group of people, it implicitly admits its citizens to not respect their equality too. It remains an 'objective' authority that hateful people can point to and find affirmation in. The state, the law, can have and does have a leading role to play in shaping an egalitarian society. It usually takes leadership to start to break out of cycles of prejudice, for the leadership in society to take steps that point the way for others.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You have nicely pointed out what can happen when a group assumes control of a State and imposes its values on its citizens.

What are positive and negative influences on society are entirely subjective by the way.

I think most would agree what are obvious positive or negative changes to society.

Rounding up and exterminating a minority group = bad.

Giving equality to a minority group = good.

History has smiled on the latter and frowned badly on the former, I think most would agree for good reasons. One leads to a net - and catastrophic - decrease in the happiness of a society, one leads to a net gain in overall happiness. It isn't as complicated as you might suggest.

oppenheimer1

LookingFor wrote: »

It needs to be tackled at both levels, and the latter has undoubtedly an impact on the former.

But society will never accept something imposed upon them that its not willing to accept. Thats why discrimination has to be addresses at societal level first which should feed into changes at State level which protects and reinforces the gains made and allows for further progress. Imposing values on a society that it doesn't share could be counter productive. It could lead to discrimination in areas where the state has little influence.

Legislating for equality is not a superficiality. It has real consequences for real lives. Even if there was zero effect on cultural equality it is a massive boon to have the State recognise your equality for a variety of very important reasons. And that state recognition often does precede a broader or overwhelming cultural acceptance.

As long as the State does not respect the equality of a group of people, it implicitly admits its citizens to not respect their equality too. It remains an 'objective' authority that hateful people can point to and find affirmation in. The state, the law, can have and does have a leading role to play in shaping an egalitarian society.



I think most would agree what are obvious positive or negative changes to society.

Rounding up and exterminating a minority group = bad.

Giving equality to a minority group = good.

History has smiled on the latter and frowned badly on the former, I think most would agree for good reasons. One leads to a net - and catastrophic - decrease in the happiness of a society, one leads to a net gain in overall happiness. It isn't as complicated as you might suggest.

What are positive and negative changes when not dealing with obvious clear cut cases are quite subjective.Homosexual adoption would be a grey area for a lot of people. If gay adoption were put to a referendum in the morning it would be utterly divisive much in the same was as divorce was in 1995. You underestimate the conservativism of Ireland, particularly rural Ireland, where more than two thirds of the population live.

Sandvich

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Disliking the idea of homosexual adoption doesn't make him homophobic.

Homophobia is an irrational hear or hatred of homosexuality.

When you get down to it; there are no real rational reasons to be against gay adoption, at least in light of the paradigms people have presented involving GINGERS.

So all that's left is the irrational.

I don't think we should baby people with arguments they can't back.

oppenheimer1

Sandvich wrote: »

Homophobia is an irrational hear or hatred of homosexuality.

When you get down to it; there are no real rational reasons to be against gay adoption, at least in light of the paradigms people have presented involving GINGERS.

So all that's left is the irrational.

I don't think we should baby people with arguments they can't back.

No that means he doesn't support gay adoption. He hasn't attacked homosexuals or the homosexual lifestyle so therefore none of his posts are homophobic.

You can disagree with something without an irrational hatred of it.

Apogee

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Homosexual adoption would be a grey area for a lot of people. If gay adoption were put to a referendum in the morning it would be utterly divisive much in the same was as divorce was in 1995.

Single people can currently adopt regardless of their orientation under Irish law. Adoption by non-marital couples is not recognised but a change to the law does not require a referendum.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But society will never accept something imposed upon them that its not willing to accept. Thats why discrimination has to be addresses at societal level first which should feed into changes at State level which protects and reinforces the gains made and allows for further progress. Imposing values on a society that it doesn't share could be counter productive.

It's chicken and the egg though.

Plenty of legislation has been introduced throughout history in advance of 'total acceptance'. There comes a point where doing so in hindsight helps get something over the hump rather than ended up being premature. I could make another example, but I'd fear you'd take it the wrong way.

You have to balance this sensitivity for the arseholeishness of others against the more pressing needs of others, where more than their prejudices or third party world view are at stake.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What are positive and negative changes when not dealing with obvious clear cut cases are quite subjective.Homosexual adoption would be a grey area for a lot of people. If gay adoption were put to a referendum in the morning it would be utterly divisive much in the same was as divorce was in 1995. You underestimate the conservativism of Ireland, particularly rural Ireland, where more than two thirds of the population live.

Would a referendum be necessary though? Gay adoption has been dealt with practically universally in other countries without the need for a referendum. I know Ireland can often be different in this regard, but I'd be curious if it would apply in this case.

But generally, referendum, or no, if it's not on the agenda at all - at the courts, at government, on a referendum, whatever - it arguably slows things down. It doesn't put things up for debate and acclimatise people to the possibility of it.

Since you raise it, though, I would be curious, in terms of step parent adoption, and adoption in general, what the obstacles are for a government here simply making provision for it in law.

Re. homophobia and gay adoption...whether a view on gay adoption is homophobic or not depends entirely why one opposes it. Judging by this thread I think opposition is rooted in homophobia, since the people opposing here cite nothing more than an unexplained gut feeling that a kid would be at detriment if raised by a gay couple. That pretty much flat out stinks of a fear-based response based on the parents' sexuality, but I'm open to a change of mind if someone would actually elucidate the reason for opposition beyond their own gut feelings or opinions.

Laminations

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Introducing the Nazis means you automatically lose the debate. Thanks.





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.

What are you talking about the adoption system for? We are not suggesting gay couples should be included to pick up any slack in the system. Womens right to work was not simply recognised because there was a shortage of workers, nor were black people suddenly given the right to vote to fix the voting system. They have there rights because they are equal. Likewise homosexual couples should have the right to be considered as possible adoptive parents. Suitability to adopt should be based on parenting ability and not on sexual orientation. So what if we have enough straight candidates, thats as narrow minded as saying we have enough white workers here.

And i still find your bullying argument baffling. Its not that i dont care about bullying, its that your answer to bullying is to avoid creating a situation for the child. So redheads should not be allowed mate as the 'ginger' child will inevitably get bullied by assholes?

Sandvich

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No that means he doesn't support gay adoption. He hasn't attacked homosexuals or the homosexual lifestyle so therefore none of his posts are homophobic.

You can disagree with something without an irrational hatred of it.

Only if you have a rational opinion to back it up. Which he doesn't, since his reasoning was shown to be irrational.

oppenheimer1

LookingFor wrote: »

It's chicken and the egg though.

Plenty of legislation has been introduced throughout history in advance of 'total acceptance'. There comes a point where doing so in hindsight helps get something over the hump rather than ended up being premature. I could make another example, but I'd fear you'd take it the wrong way.

You have to balance this sensitivity for the arseholeishness of others against the more pressing needs of others, where more than their prejudices or third party world view are at stake.



Would a referendum be necessary though? Gay adoption has been dealt with practically universally in other countries without the need for a referendum. I know Ireland can often be different in this regard, but I'd be curious if it would apply in this case.

But generally, referendum, or no, if it's not on the agenda at all - at the courts, at government, on a referendum, whatever - it arguably slows things down. It doesn't put things up for debate and acclimatise people to the possibility of it.

Since you raise it, though, I would be curious, in terms of step parent adoption, and adoption in general, what the obstacles are for a government here simply making provision for it in law.

Re. homophobia and gay adoption...whether a view on gay adoption is homophobic or not depends entirely why one opposes it. Judging by this thread I think opposition is rooted in homophobia, since the people opposing here cite nothing more than an unexplained gut feeling that a kid would be at detriment if raised by a gay couple. That pretty much flat out stinks of a fear-based response based on the parents' sexuality, but I'm open to a change of mind if someone would actually elucidate the reason for opposition beyond their own gut feelings or opinions.

Forgive me for mentioning a referendum, plebisicite would have been a more appriopriate word as it isn't a constitutional issue. Partnership and Adoption will probably both be legislated for through the Dáil rather than through a question to the electorate.

I don't like to see the homophobia card being played. Like racism and immigration, use of these terms stifles debate and only leaves festering unspoken resentment. And that doesn't do anyone any good.

Bottle_of_Smoke

LookingFor wrote: »

Would a referendum be necessary though? Gay adoption has been dealt with practically universally in other countries without the need for a referendum. I know Ireland can often be different in this regard, but I'd be curious if it would apply in this case.

AFAIK for full marriage for a homosexual couple, constitutional lawyers agree a constitution change is neccesary.

Now although cross section polls show 60+% of the population are in favour of full civil marriage fro homosexual couples, if it went to referendum the opposition would turn it into a gay adoption issue, which I have no doubt would be rejected by a large percentage of society.

I think the homosexual rights groups need to start being strategic instead of loud. They should accept the civil partnership deal, then in a decade or two when most people know a "married" gay couple and realise its not the end of humanity start pushing for a full civil marriage referendum. If they do that now it'll be rejected by large margin and that will be the end of it.

Sulmac

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

AFAIK for full marriage for a homosexual couple, constitutional lawyers agree a constitution change is neccesary.

Yes, but the "change" can come about via the courts (see my last post in this thread), not just through a referendum. The text is just one aspect of the Constitution, the interpretation is what matters more.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sulmac wrote: »

Yes, but the "change" can come about via the courts (see my last post in this thread), not just through a referendum. The text is just one aspect of the Constitution, the interpretation is what matters more.

I'll be honest I hadn't read article 41 before, had just read what lawyers/judges had said. Wouldn't be surprised if the supreme court changed the definition, really is nothing in it that prevents gay marriage.

ShagNastii

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Now although cross section polls show 60+% of the population are in favour of full civil marriage fro homosexual couples, if it went to referendum the opposition would turn it into a gay adoption issue, which I have no doubt would be rejected by a large percentage of society.

I think the homosexual rights groups need to start being strategic instead of loud. They should accept the civil partnership deal, then in a decade or two when most people know a "married" gay couple and realise its not the end of humanity start pushing for a full civil marriage referendum. If they do that now it'll be rejected by large margin and that will be the end of it.

I'd love to add my two cents but I haven't a clue where to start. There really is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't have as much equality as myself and others. I find it hard to comment because as a hetrosexual male, I find what gay people do was very little impact in my life. If gay people can get married tomorrow. For me the day will be no different than today.

As I'm in straight majority pretty much when it comes to "rights" I have nothing to shout about or cause to forward. So as stated I deep down haven't a clue to what EXACTLY homosexuals want.

Give them all the rights they ask for and need. To anyone other than the gays themselves it will make little difference. I'm pretty sure a large chunk of people have no idea about the civil partnership bill and when it was/will be or could be produced. Homosexuals are equal giving them all equlities isn't going to make the sky fall to the ground.

I like debating the whole issue it makes for great debate. I laugh at times wen people bring up swans animals nature and the like. It's like if you ask me why I feel the desire for a women, I'd be here all day trying to explain it Much like a gay man would have difficulty explaining why he desires men. It just in you.

I won't lie there are times much like many posters have stated that the gut feeling my be one which would be classed a homophobic. At times with minorites "crying about discrimination". I instantly think "Ah get over yourselves FFS" I guess this is,as I stated I never really feel discriminated in any fassets of my life.

I aslo must say if I was a child and had the choice of "Daddy and daddy" or "Mammy and Daddy". If would be more inclined to choose the latter. Does this make me homophobic?

And one last thing off topic I'm unsure there are peole who can explain this but I constantly hear that homophobia is often stated to be linked to a fear of homosexuality? Where does this link come from. I think it is such a stupid remark. Maybe too simply put but what have people to be fearful of. Take the church or the like of Iris Robinson many peple would state they are fearing of Gay people. How in gods name are the church and others how are against homosexually fearing of gays. (e.g if I was bigot and attacked a gay person calling them ******-abomination-fruit many would claim I'm afraid, threatened of homosexually wouldn't such a person be the exact opposite)


Thanks for the rumble

---

Tis late project to finish good night

seanybiker

Im just going to throw my opinion out there. Lesbian, gay and bi I agree with. Well not agree or not disagree. I dont believe a transexual should get the same rights as a gay, bi etc. Dont get me wrong. Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else but I go by birth cert. If someone is born a man, they are a man, no matter what op they get. I know a person here in waterford who got the operation. He is a she now, but I would still say him. Maybe cos I knew him before the op, i dunno. Basically what Im saying is. Gay and lesbian(samething to me) should be able to marry, adopt etc but I do see problems with trans gender.

Annasopra

seanybiker wrote: »

I do see problems with trans gender.

What problems?

Karl Hungus

seanybiker wrote: »

Im just going to throw my opinion out there. Lesbian, gay and bi I agree with. Well not agree or not disagree. I dont believe a transexual should get the same rights as a gay, bi etc. Dont get me wrong. Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else but I go by birth cert. If someone is born a man, they are a man, no matter what op they get. I know a person here in waterford who got the operation. He is a she now, but I would still say him. Maybe cos I knew him before the op, i dunno. Basically what Im saying is. Gay and lesbian(samething to me) should be able to marry, adopt etc but I do see problems with trans gender.

Hmm... Like Johnnymcg, I too would like to know what problems it is you see with transgender people, and why they shouldn't have the same rights as gay people and such?

Anyway, I think transgender is an extremely unique subject that people are really only beginning to understand and get to grips with both in terms of science and psychology, but also in terms of society's attitude towards such people. Homosexuality is something that we at least acknowledge and have some understanding of, even though we've still a way to come with regards to rights and acceptance, as I'm sure we all know. Transsexuality on the other hand, I don't think it's something that a lot of people have ever really thought about, never mind giving any serious consideration to as an issue, and when they are faced with a transgender person (such as in the media, or even in real life), they don't really know how to react, and because the concept of someone being a gender other than their biological sex is so alien to them, probably think the person is crazy or at the very least not completely sane. And to be entirely fair, who can blame people for thinking that?

I was engaged in a debate about homosexuality over on the Atheism & Agnosticism forum not so long ago, and in digging for information to support my arguments came across a study that shows that the phenomena of a female brain in a male body was in fact scientifically documented and proved (which you can read here). Now, I knew a transgendered girl some years back, and to me she was nothing other than female, how she was born didn't really factor into it. So I believed the concept of a female brain in a male body, but until recently I didn't really know how there was any such evidence for it. Another bit of relevant info here. In my case I think I was pretty open to transgender people myself because of the fact I knew this girl, but then I get the idea of just how little I knew about it. It's something that I don't think is reflected well in the media either. I mean, we've had a lot of discussion sparked from the 'Growing Up Gay' show that was shown on RTE, as well as that, there's lot of gay characters in TV shows and the like, and it's pretty well represented on film as well, like Brokeback Mountain. Transgender issues just aren't anywhere near as well represented. From my own perspective, I watch a hell of a lot of films, but I've only ever seen 2 that deal with the subject: Transamerica, and Beautiful Boxer. I'd say it is something we probably should see more of, in terms of documentaries and films in the public eye, before people can really get to grips with the issues.

But even then, I think it'll still be a very difficult issue for people to relate to. I mean, how could anyone possibly begin to understand something like that? In my case, I try to put it in terms of how I identify myself, and try to relate from there. So lets say that one of the things I identify myself as is an Atheist, yet I was raised Catholic. I was baptised, went to mass each week, had my first communion and so on, until I stopped going to mass and stuck firm to what I really felt about religion. Now, I wouldn't ever say that I was Catholic, it was just something I was born into, and kinda went along with for a while. And I think, what would it be like if someone insisted on calling me a catholic and define me as such? Well, I'd imagine I'd be pretty damned furious. If someone said that I wasn't raised atheist, so I couldn't really be one, or that they still see me as catholic because they remember me going to church, or that I'd always be catholic because I was baptised, I'd be massively insulted. That's not meant to be a direct comparison of course, that's just my own way of wrapping my head around how transgender people must feel if someone calls them "he" or "him" and they identify as female (or the other way around if they're identify as male).

I'd say that in my own circumstance something I was born into doesn't define who I am, and in that sense, I define what I am and what I identify as, so I will certainly afford the same respect to someone who feels their biological sex is just something they were born into and that it doesn't define them, and I'll refer to them as whatever they identify as. Anyway, I'm sure it's extremely hard for a lot of people to even get their heads around transgender issues, and though I certainly try to understand and relate, as would many others, I'd say that it's something that most people will never understand. Nor can I really understand what it's like to be gay. But in spite of that, I'm a firm believer that rights for all gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people need significant improvements. And I think it is sad that anyone would say that transgender people don't deserve the same rights.

Anyway, just my €0.02 on the subject.

Sandvich

seanybiker wrote: »

Im just going to throw my opinion out there. Lesbian, gay and bi I agree with. Well not agree or not disagree. I dont believe a transexual should get the same rights as a gay, bi etc. Dont get me wrong. Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else but I go by birth cert. If someone is born a man, they are a man, no matter what op they get.

What is your reasoning for this? Basing your worldview on a single unbacked statement is a bad idea - too much of american politics for example is based on slogans, and I think you may be falling into the same trap.

When people complain about words like "Homophobia" being overused, they often come out with opinions like this. A phobia is an "irrational" fear or dislike of something, which would at the end of the day define your position - since you are not providing any reasoning to back it up.

Why exactly is someone still a "man" after the OP? And do you not "agree" with the scientific findings that gender identity is hard wired? So in a sense you're right - their gender remains constant no matter what OP they get.

I know a person here in waterford who got the operation. He is a she now, but I would still say him.

This is immensely disrespectful. Really, what do you hope to achieve? Do you not try to put yourself in that person's shoes and see how miserable it would be if after all that strife, someone still insisted on putting you back in your place? I do not understand why the common man seems to lack such empathy.

Even if you disagree - having some respect is the right thing to do.

Maybe cos I knew him before the op, i dunno. Basically what Im saying is. Gay and lesbian(samething to me) should be able to marry, adopt etc but I do see problems with trans gender.

So transgendered people shouldn't be able to marry and adopt? I'm curious.

Apogee

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Forgive me for mentioning a referendum, plebisicite would have been a more appriopriate word as it isn't a constitutional issue. Partnership and Adoption will probably both be legislated for through the Dáil rather than through a question to the electorate.

I'm not aware of any piece of national legislation has been decided in Ireland by plebiscite since 1937 (adoption of the Constitution). The prospect of Civil Partnership or Adoption or any other legislation being put to plebiscite is a non-issue.

the_syco

I just had a f**ked up thought: the two fathers will have next to no rights to the kid in Ireland.

LookingFor wrote: »

It's chicken and the egg though.

Plenty of legislation has been introduced throughout history in advance of 'total acceptance'. There comes a point where doing so in hindsight helps get something over the hump rather than ended up being premature. I could make another example, but I'd fear you'd take it the wrong way.

Agreed. No-one wanted to give blacks any freedom, but that turned out okay. One of them is now a president.

Although I'm against it, I do accept that if it's pushed through correctly, it may work out. Doesn't mean I have to like it :P

Thirdfox

He's not black! :P - mixed race and raised by "white" grandparents... sorry for the OT-ness but it just really irks me when people keep on saying black (and he himself ) when he's not really...

the_syco

Thirdfox wrote: »

He's not black! :P - mixed race and raised by "white" grandparents... sorry for the OT-ness but it just really irks me when people keep on saying black (and he himself ) when he's not really...

If you want to go down that road... one of his parents would've gotten lynched if it were not okay for blacks to marry white.Happy? :P

seanybiker

I think its fair that I answer the question that was asked to me in an earlier post.
I have no problem with gay people at all. I also dont understand why this place is called gay and lesbian. Is a lesbian not gay? Why is a woman being gay called a lesbian but a man being gay called gay? Everyone should have that same rights etc so why change it to lesbian just because its a woman. Why not gay and gay. Anyways. As I said earlier, I can see a problem with transexual people adopting kids. Yes I can see a problem does not mean I agree with the problem, it just means the simple thing that I can see one. Im all for people doing what they want in life. Its none of my business(i know someone is gonna quote that) but as I said earlier in my last post. Yes I do see problems with a transgender person adopting a child. In my eyes, if a person is born a man, no matter what cosmetic surgery is done, that person is still a man. At the moment in the world it is going to be strange that a man changes his sex and then tries to adopt. Im only saying the truth. The child will be bullied, Im sure ye can agree. Its not a fact the child will be bullied but in all fairness it is more likely. Hopefully in years to come it will be more acceptible. No offence to anyone at all. My twin is gay. Yeah it took me a little while to accept it and I did start fights to be fair with people getting onto him.

Karl Hungus

seanybiker wrote: »

Anyways. As I said earlier, I can see a problem with transexual people adopting kids. Yes I can see a problem does not mean I agree with the problem, it just means the simple thing that I can see one. Im all for people doing what they want in life. Its none of my business(i know someone is gonna quote that) but as I said earlier in my last post. Yes I do see problems with a transgender person adopting a child. In my eyes, if a person is born a man, no matter what cosmetic surgery is done, that person is still a man. At the moment in the world it is going to be strange that a man changes his sex and then tries to adopt. Im only saying the truth. The child will be bullied, Im sure ye can agree. Its not a fact the child will be bullied but in all fairness it is more likely. Hopefully in years to come it will be more acceptible. No offence to anyone at all. My twin is gay. Yeah it took me a little while to accept it and I did start fights to be fair with people getting onto him.

Ah, come on now, what kind of hypocrisy is this? You're against transgender people adopting, because you believe the child would be bullied? (Never mind that it's probably unlikely other children would even know that one of a child's parents is transgender, as the parent would probably keep their status private.) That's the same nonsense argument against why homosexuals shouldn't adopt, so you'll forgive me for quoting your previous post on the subject:

seanybiker wrote: »

Gay and lesbian(samething to me) should be able to marry, adopt etc but I do see problems with trans gender.

So why the double standard? Why do you think that gay or lesbian partners should have a right to adopt, yet a partnership where one individual is transgender should not have such a right? I don't follow the logic there at all, because there is a possibility of bullying in both scenarios (that is, assuming other children knew the status of a child's parents), so why do you think it should be perfectly ok for a child to face the possibility of bullying if they were raised by gay parents, yet the same possibility is unacceptable if the child had a transgender parent?

I think we can dismiss the issue of bullying now, so is it an issue of a child needing male and female role models during their upbringing? If we take the example of a partnership between a man and a transgender woman, then a child is growing up with both male and female role models, so there's no problem there. Or if we take your logic that born a man = always a man, then you see such a partnership as homosexual in nature, but you support gay adoption, so that can't be a problem either. Whichever way we look at it, by your own standards, there's no issue. We can now logically discount bullying and role models in a child's upbringing as possible issues, so where exactly does your issue lie?

I think you're simply uncomfortable and/or have some bias against transgender individuals. Your view that once a man, always a man is pretty reprehensible not only from a sensitivity standpoint but from a biological one, seeing how medical studies have documented the paradigm of the female brain in a male body, so it's more a case of such individuals never having been male in the first place, simply being born with male anatomy. A sex change also isn't just surgery, but involves hormone treatment, where the body will change itself and develop in ways such as breast growth and weight distribution among many other changes, so the body itself does become female in a lot of ways and therefor it can't be argued that such changes are merely cosmetic.

If your notions of a person's gender are merely down to what's between the legs, then how exactly do you feel about someone like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4N-0CgUCX8

Or for that matter, how do you feel about someone like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odeDW5p4_CY

I mean, the above woman is genetically male, right? Would you insist she's a man, because as you said yourself, once a man always a man, and sure it's in her genes. Would you have been against her adopting? I'm sure you wouldn't have any such objections, but when you really stop to think of it, what's the difference between her and a transgender woman? I mean, neither woman has a uterus, they'd both be genetically male, so where do you draw the line there? Here's food for thought, you know they can transplant a donor uterus, so it's a possibility for a transgender woman to birth her own child. Would you object to that?

There's plenty of ambiguity in nature, and frankly there's quite a lot we don't actually know about gender yet. But what we do know is that it's not as clear cut as we used to think, and that a lot of things can happen during fetal development that produces significant variation in gender and sexual characteristics. And you know, the funny thing is, I know absolutely **** all about this. I think that I've really only lately skimmed the surface of an absolutely huge issue that is extremely complex, and I know a little bit about it now, but there's so very much that I don't, nor will understand. That just kind of puts things in perspective for me in terms of society's understanding of such issues. We've got a long way to come yet tbh.

Annasopra

seanybiker wrote: »

My twin is gay. Yeah it took me a little while to accept it and I did start fights to be fair with people getting onto him.

What if your twin realised that he is she - a Transgender male to female?

aDeener

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Introducing the Nazis means you automatically lose the debate. Thanks.





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.

very interesting point you make there. cynic in me would be inclined to agree with that

Sandvich

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Your birth cert states your sex, not your gender. No matter how hard you try you cannot change your sex. Its hardwired into your chromasomes.

What about women that have male chromosomes? It's a real condition called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MedicalMysteries/story?id=5465752&page=1

Do you go around checking people's "real" sex with an electron microscope? No, so don't be ridiculous.

I wish people would at least admit they just have issues accepting trans people, we could work with that, instead of working backwards from it coming up with pathetic excuses.