67% of Irish support Gay Marriage, 46% support Gay Adoption.

Donnaghm

Very positive news altogether in relation to changing attitudes about sex and sexuality in this country. We've become remarkably liberal, seemingly out of the blue. I especially find the statistic which shows that 91% of the population would not change their view of a person were they Gay or Lesbian quite heartwarming. We're becoming less of a backward ****hole with every passing day. It's nice to see.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0915/1224278900109.html?digest=1

tcd

well i certainly amnt fuking one of em

Donnaghm

tcd wrote: »

well i certainly amnt fuking one of em

One of which? Explain.

tcd

supporters

Donnaghm

Why are you on this forum then??????? Confused?

leedsfan88

I'd support gay marriage and gay adoption

tcd

no saw it on the home page so just thought i would say it

Wolfe Tone

Donnaghm wrote: »

Very positive news altogether in relation to changing attitudes about sex and sexuality in this country. We've become remarkably liberal, seemingly out of the blue. I especially find the statistic which shows that 91% of the population would not change their view of a person were they Gay or Lesbian quite heartwarming. We're becoming less of a backward ****hole with every passing day. It's nice to see.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0915/1224278900109.html?digest=1

Have a huge pinch of salt.


How was this poll conducted? Can it be trusted? What where the age profiles asked? The sex profiles? Geographical profiles? Where they afraid to answer what they really felt?


All reasons why these polls mean feck all, whether it be politics or something like this.

Donnaghm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Have a huge pinch of salt.


How was this poll conducted? Can it be trusted? What where the age profiles asked? The sex profiles? Geographical profiles? Where they afraid to answer what they really felt?


All reasons why these polls mean feck all, whether it be politics or something like this.

Ya there's a demographic breakdown. Older people and some men are naturally less favorable.

Wolfe Tone

Donnaghm wrote: »

Ya there's a demographic breakdown. Older people and some men are naturally less favorable.

Have a link to that?

Donnaghm

tcd wrote: »

no saw it on the home page so just thought i would say it

Any particular rational reasons for your objections to the granting of equal rights to gay people?

tcd

Donnaghm wrote: »

Any particular rational reasons for your objections to the granting of equal rights to gay people?

Em, yes. Completely unnatural. Can you imagine the embarrassment of a child being adopted into a family like that? The bullying in school?

And if you's can't have a child naturally because of how god made you, then that's the way it is.

Donnaghm

tcd wrote: »

Em, yes. Completely unnatural. Can you imagine the embarrassment of a child being adopted into a family like that? The bullying in school?

And if you's can't have a child naturally because of how god made you, then that's the way it is.

You realize it's the attitude of people like you whivh contributes to the depression and suicides of gay people?
I said give a rational reason, not what some God, the existence of which you've no evidence, supposedly dictates.

Also this forum is intended for LGBT people who wish to discuss LGBT issues, not for bigots like you to spread your poison so please **** off!

Wolfe Tone

Also this forum is intended for LGBT people who which to discuss LGBT issues, not for bigots like you to spread your poison so please **** off!

What? Im not LGBT. I thought this forum was for civil discussion of LGBT issues by everyone?

Goodshape

unnatural? and if god intended us to fly he would have given us wings. Lets ground all planes right away!

Bullying? and lets euthanize all red heads, tall people, short people, skinny people, fat people, dark people, pale people, and so on. My god, the shame.

That's the way it is? which is why we NEVER hear of infertile couples or single people adopting children.



Have you got any reasons that don't make you should like a sheltered 14 year old?

Donnaghm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What? Im not LGBT. I thought this forum was for civil discussion of LGBT issues by everyone?

No, it's intended to help LGBT people, why would you want people like TCD calling gay people god knows what when they're are young people posting on this website looking for advice because they're struggling to come out and are at the end of their tedder?

Donnaghm

Goodshape wrote: »

unnatural? and if god intended us to fly he would have given us wings. Lets ground all planes right away!

Bullying? and lets euthanize all red heads, tall people, short people, skinny people, fat people, dark people, pale people, and so on. My god, the shame.

That's the way it is? which is why we NEVER hear of infertile couples or single people adopting children.



Have you got any reasons that don't make you should like a sheltered 14 year old?

Well said, I hope TCD isn't an adult. God damn awful human being.

Wolfe Tone

I suppose an issue could be that the parents are giving up the child under the impression that the child will be placed in a "normal" or "ideal" family setting, ie a traditional man/woman one.

Goodshape

Why does "normal" or "ideal" infer a man/woman relationship? Says who?

What's normal anyway? What's ideal?

Are you normal? How can you tell?

Wolfe Tone

Goodshape wrote: »

Why does "normal" or "ideal" infer a man/woman relationship? Says who?

What's normal anyway? What's ideal?

Are you normal? How can you tell?

Perhaps the parents, and the historical precedent of how a family is viewed?


I used quotation marks there to distance myself from those views.

Goodshape

Fwiw, I think this form is open to anyone to discuss lgbt issues. Tcd is only expressing an opinion. Maybe he can learn something while he's here.

Donnaghm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I suppose an issue could be that the parents are giving up the child under the impression that the child will be placed in a "normal" or "ideal" family setting, ie a traditional man/woman one.

All the psychiatric evidence shows that it doesn't matter a jot what gender the parents are as long as they love the child unconditionally. That's all a child needs if they're biological parents aren't around.

Wolfe Tone

Donnaghm wrote: »

All the psychiatric evidence shows that it doesn't matter a jot what gender the parents are as long as they love the child unconditionally. That's all a child needs if they're biological parents aren't around.

I dont disagree, but in any case, care to provide links to this evidence from an unbiased source?

Donnaghm

Goodshape wrote: »

Fwiw, I think this form is open to anyone to discuss lgbt issues. Tcd is only expressing an opinion. Maybe he can learn something while he's here.

Yes, it would be fascinating, from an evolutionary science point of view, to learn more about the mind of a Neanderthal. It should teach us a lot about the brain functionings of pre-historic primates.

Links234

tcd wrote: »

And if you's can't have a child naturally because of how god made you, then that's the way it is.

Well then going by your logic, infertile men and women shouldn't be allowed to adopt even if they're heterosexual.



that kinda logic also implies that people who might benefit from medical advances in order to increase chances of procreation shouldn't, because of how "god" made them and that's just the way it is.

Donnaghm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I dont disagree, but in any case, care to provide links to this evidence from an unbiased source?

The only ones that are biased are the LGBT reports and the religious ones, both of which I've steered away from. The rest should be easy to find. Go find them yourself if you're so preoccupied with the subject.

Wolfe Tone

Donnaghm wrote: »

The only ones that are biased are the LGBT reports and the religious ones, both of which I've steered away from. The rest should be easy to find. Go find them yourself if you're so preoccupied with the subject.

How nice.

It is bad form to claim you have evidence to back something up then say "go find it yourself" when someone enquirers about it out of simply curiousness and a wish to further educate himself.

tcd

Calling me stupid and neatherthal... I have more than likely done better than a lot at my Leaving so wrong there.
When you're discussing unnatural things and comparing them to planes in this case, it's laughable. We're talking about a family here.
You're talking about technological advances and innovations, I don't think they can be compared.
The fact that people disagree on this issue all over the world, concerning all ages; children growing up in this environment would more than likely subjected to a lot more bullying in my opinion than a red headed person etc also

Links234

tcd wrote: »

Calling me stupid and neatherthal... I have more than likely done better than a lot at my Leaving so wrong there.
When you're discussing unnatural things and comparing them to planes in this case, it's laughable. We're talking about a family here.
You're talking about technological advances and innovations, I don't think they can be compared.
The fact that people disagree on this issue all over the world, concerning all ages; children growing up in this environment would more than likely subjected to a lot more bullying in my opinion than a red headed person etc also

but it's long established that homosexuality exists in animals, so all LGBT people are of course natural

the argument that "it's not natural" falls short when there's plenty of studies to show that homosexuality is naturally occurring

you might as well be arguing that left handed people are unnatural.

also, ANYONE is a possible victim of bullying.
this was the same argument back when they didn't allow interracial marriage in america "think of what the children would face", it's just a pathetic way to dress up your own prejudices as if they were concerns about children

Goodshape

The plane comparison was a bit of a joke, yeah. Well done for spotting that. What about infertile couples? God obviously intended for them not to have children. Should we stop them adopting too?

And the chance if somebody maybe possibly getting bullied at some point in their school life... you think that should stand in the way of anything? we wouldn't have gotten very far with any sort of racial or even gender integration with that thinking. Maybe we should just go back to keeping the races apart and the woman at home in future. You know, in case they get bullied.

Wolfe Tone

The plane comparison was a bit of a joke, yeah. Well done for spotting that. What about infertile couples? God obviously intended for them not to have children. Should we stop them adopting too?

As a pre empt, the "maybe they were not born that way" card will be played if we go much further down that road.

rainbow kirby

tcd wrote: »

well i certainly amnt fuking one of em

That's fine. No need to be so belligerent about it though.

Donnaghm wrote: »

Also this forum is intended for LGBT people who wish to discuss LGBT issues, not for bigots like you to spread your poison so please **** off!

The forum is for anyone who wishes to discuss LGBT issues in a civil manner.

Goodshape wrote: »

What's normal anyway? What's ideal?

Normal is a distribution. :pac:

rainbow kirby

Also, I would like to draw some attention to the forum charter, particularly

Stark wrote: »

The following subjects are not kosher for discussion:

Paedophilia, (Ep)hebophilia(except in the context of safety for homosexual youth), bible-bashing(we're well aware of the religious stance on homosexuality) , discussions on whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural or related materials.

Any such posts will be immediately deleted and posters will face banning.

meglome

tcd wrote: »

Calling me stupid and neatherthal... I have more than likely done better than a lot at my Leaving so wrong there.
When you're discussing unnatural things and comparing them to planes in this case, it's laughable. We're talking about a family here.
You're talking about technological advances and innovations, I don't think they can be compared.

Now that you're finished your leaving you should go out and see the world, you might learn something.

tcd wrote: »

The fact that people disagree on this issue all over the world, concerning all ages; children growing up in this environment would more than likely subjected to a lot more bullying in my opinion than a red headed person etc also

Some people say the world is flat and it's been known since at least 3BC that it wasn't. People say a lot of things, doesn't make what they say sense. Maybe if some of these people had better upbringings in more loving homes they wouldn't have such foolish opinions. Either a home is a good home or it isn't, the sexuality of the parents is irrelevant to that.

Wolfe Tone

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Also, I would like to draw some attention to the forum charter, particularly

Just to clarify, does that include discussion on the "family unit" as in a male/female parental figure being more "natural" than a gay one?

Teferi

tcd wrote: »

Em, yes. Completely unnatural. Can you imagine the embarrassment of a child being adopted into a family like that? The bullying in school?

And if you's can't have a child naturally because of how god made you, then that's the way it is.

If you don't want a gay marriage then don't get one.

If you don't want a gay adoption then don't get one.

But refusing that right to another person just because you don't like their lifestyle is beyond retarded.

To the poster who said this forum is for LGBT only - acceptance goes both ways and while I'm straight, I have an interest in LGBT issues.

Wolfe Tone

Maybe if some of these people had better upbringings in more loving homes they wouldn't have such foolish opinions.

That is 100% pure rubbish. People can have great upbringings in loving homes and have opinions of their own you know.

Links234

Teferi wrote: »

If you don't want a gay marriage then don't get one.

If you don't want a gay adoption then don't get one.

well said

Wolfe Tone

Links234 wrote: »

well said

No offense, but that is flawed logic. You could apply that to anything really.

rainbow kirby

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Just to clarify, does that include discussion on the "family unit" as in a male/female parental figure being more "natural" than a gay one?

Clarification PM'd.

Links234

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

No offense, but that is flawed logic. You could apply that to anything really.

Maybe, but when two people wish to get married, they shouldn't have to suffer the tyranny of the majority refusing on dubious grounds

tcd

''If you don't want a gay marriage then don't get one.

If you don't want a gay adoption then don't get one.

But refusing that right to another person just because you don't like their lifestyle is beyond retarded''


That is also flawed logic. You could say that about anything. ''If you don't want to grow up a nazi..''
A ridiculous comparison I know but I'm just getting a message across, you could use that mindset for anything, even if sadistic.

Wolfe Tone

Links234 wrote: »

Maybe, but when two people wish to get married, they shouldn't have to suffer the tyranny of the majority refusing on dubious grounds

Then what do you say the to someone who says "the majority should not be held hostage by a minority who wish to change a long standing institution(marriage) to suit their own views and definitions?"


Just to say that I am not making that argument, just curious.

rainbow kirby

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Then what do you say the to someone who says "the majority should not be held hostage by a minority who wish to change a long standing institution(marriage) to suit their own views and definitions?"

Heterosexual civil marriage is not changed by allowing gay marriage. It just allows more monogamous committed couples to have their relationships formally recognised as a family unit (which in the Irish version of Bunreacht na h-Éireann is described using the word teaghlach, or household, which is a term that makes no reference to gender).

Kanoe

tcd wrote: »

''If you don't want a gay marriage then don't get one.

If you don't want a gay adoption then don't get one.

But refusing that right to another person just because you don't like their lifestyle is beyond retarded''


That is also flawed logic. You could say that about anything. ''If you don't want to grow up a nazi..''
A ridiculous comparison I know but I'm just getting a message across, you could use that mindset for anything, even if sadistic.

thats seriously offensive stuff there lad. Hope your career in the Gardai works out for you.

Wolfe Tone

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Heterosexual civil marriage is not changed by allowing gay marriage. It just allows more monogamous committed couples to have their relationships formally recognised as a family unit (which in the Irish version of Bunreacht na h-Éireann is described using the word teaghlach, or household, which is a term that makes no reference to gender).

Yes but when is "tyranny" democracy?


As an aside, I would translate teaghlach as "family" and I am 100% sure that Dev intended that to refer to a "traditional family" Ie a husband and wife.

Links234

it's been posted loads of times before, but watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY

Links234

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWrhm_H1dAw

Wolfe Tone

Links234 wrote: »

it's been posted loads of times before, but watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY

There was quite a bit of misinformation in that piece. Especially the piece about religion. With regards to "Do onto others" would the religious person in question not want to be stopped from doing something "sinful"?

And how is it not about politics?

Anyway, I don't particularly care if gay people can marry. I suppose these days I would consider myself quite liberal with everything except abortion.

I am interested to hear when in your mind when democracy or majority rule, is tyrannical.

Links234

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I am interested to hear when in your mind when democracy or majority rule, is tyrannical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

the lack of marriage equality is quite clearly the tyranny of the majority.

Wolfe Tone

Links234 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

the lack of marriage equality is quite clearly the tyranny of the majority.

So how do you combat that then, without damaging democracy?