LGBT Noise March wants same sex marriage

glic71rods46t0

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/marchers-urge-gay-marriage-equality-2842066.html

Is there is more to the story than what is being reported. What does same sex marriage do that civil partnership doesn't?

efb

Come next Sunday and find out.

I am not a second class citizen

glic71rods46t0

efb wrote: »

Come next Sunday and find out.

I am not a second class citizen

Thats not a very informative post!

efb

The previous post gave a link with the details and I advised to come next Sunday to find out?

What do you want?

matthew8

Why should the government play any role in marriage?

glic71rods46t0

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.marriagequality.ie/learn/civilpartnershipbill/

The main issue from that link seems to relate to children.
I think thats the main problem with same sex marriage. One of the main purposes of marriage is to have children. The reality for same sex couples is that they cannot do this without the reproductive material from another human being - so I think the law has gone as far as it should.

efb

And we don't, that's why were marching

glic71rods46t0

efb wrote: »

The previous post gave a link with the details and I advised to come next Sunday to find out?

What do you want?

The idea of the forum is to facilitate debate, so I guess what I want is a debate!

glic71rods46t0

efb wrote: »

And we don't, that's why were marching

You should consider quoting the post you are replying to because your post makes no sense as its impossible to put it in context!

matthew8

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

The main issue from that link seems to relate to children.
I think thats the main problem with same sex marriage. One of the main purposes of marriage is to have children. The reality for same sex couples is that they cannot do this without the reproductive material from another human being - so I think the law has gone as far as it should.

It's not like banning gay marriage would prevent people being gay. Look at me! I need the government to keep me straight! I think gays and lesbians can fill a void in society left by irresponsible/deceased parents through adoption. Most children without parents would much rather gay parents rather than no parents.

I don't see why marriage is anything more than a religious ceremony and the state has to get involved. The church should reserve the right not to marry people they don't want to marry.

glic71rods46t0

matthew8 wrote: »

It's not like banning gay marriage would prevent people being gay. Look at me! I need the government to keep me straight! I think gays and lesbians can fill a void in society left by irresponsible/deceased parents through adoption. Most children without parents would much rather gay parents rather than no parents.

I don't see why marriage is anything more than a religious ceremony and the state has to get involved. The church should reserve the right not to marry people they don't want to marry.

So the issue is really about adoption and parenting rights?
There is no shortage of childless married hetrosexual couples ready to adopt the very limited number of children put up for adoption and many couples must wait for years to adopt so I don't think that the issue of gay parents being preferable to no parents would arise in this country.

Duddy

I think gays and lesbians can fill a void in society left by irresponsible/deceased parents through adoption. Most children without parents would much rather gay parents rather than no parents

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

So the issue is really about adoption and parenting rights?
There is no shortage of childless married hetrosexual couples ready to adopt the very limited number of children put up for adoption and many couples must wait for years to adopt so I don't think that the issue of gay parents being preferable to no parents would arise in this country.

It would also be hoped that potential gay parents wouldn't be chosen as a last resort, and be viewed equally to potential straight parents.

Nodin

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

The main issue from that link seems to relate to children.
I think thats the main problem with same sex marriage. One of the main purposes of marriage is to have children.
.

Says who, exactly?

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

The reality for same sex couples is that they cannot do this without the reproductive material from another human being - so I think the law has gone as far as it should.

And those men/women who are infertile.....?

Nodin

matthew8 wrote: »

It's not like banning gay marriage would prevent people being gay. Look at me! I need the government to keep me straight!

'Dear Sir,

Due to recent cutbacks at our Department, we have looked again at your status and decided to allocate you to the Gays'.

glic71rods46t0

Duddy wrote: »

It would also be hoped that potential gay parents wouldn't be chosen as a last resort, and be viewed equally to potential straight parents.

Hoped by you I assume? I wouldn't share that hope and I would guess that a substantial majority of the Irish people would share my view that, all other things being equal, straight adoptive parents are to be favoured over gay adoptive parents. I wouldnt even agree with potential gay parents as a last resort, it shouldn't be an option at all.

matthew8

Duddy wrote: »

It would also be hoped that potential gay parents wouldn't be chosen as a last resort, and be viewed equally to potential straight parents.

I think that ultimately the child should have the choice of who they want to be adopted by if there is competition. I would probably choose the heterosexual couple. I don't see any reason for the gov't to distinguish between gays and heterosexuals.

glic71rods46t0

Nodin wrote: »

Says who, exactly?

Says the link you posted, the rest is just padding from what I can see (and much of the financial issues has been or is being dealt with

Nodin wrote: »

And those men/women who are infertile.....?

We are not debating infertile hetrosexual couple. The thread is about same sex marriage. It is my view that the real issue for those advocating for same sex marriage is parenting/adoption rights. Whats your view?

glic71rods46t0

matthew8 wrote: »

I think that ultimately the child should have the choice of who they want to be adopted by if there is competition. I would probably choose the heterosexual couple. I don't see any reason for the gov't to distinguish between gays and heterosexuals.

For babies, offering a choice is not an option.
It is my opinion that the majority of our society would favour hetrosexual couples over gay couples in the adoption process. It currently does and can restrict adoption rights to married couples. I think this is what the advocates of gay marriage want to get around. The issue is about parenting/adoption rights rather than some benign desire to be husband & husband or wife & wife.

efb

I guess the infertile argument was brought up as you proffered gay couples inability to have a child together as a reason they shouldn't. The same scenario would apply to infertile couples.

Also gay adoption usually means the adoption of a child that one of the parents is the biological parent, through surragacy or otherwise, rather than a child unrelated to either

glic71rods46t0

efb wrote: »

I guess the infertile argument was brought up as you proffered gay couples inability to have a child together as a reason they shouldn't. The same scenario would apply to infertile couples.

Aslo it usually means the adoption of a child that one of the parents is the biological parent, through surragacy or otherwise, rather than a child unrelated to either

You didnt bring up the issue of infertile couples and I have replied to the poster who did.
Infertile couples are not looking for marriage rights - they have that right already.
The LGBT Group is seeking same sex marriage laws to be passed. My point is that they are really seeking parenting/adoption rights. The national debate should be about exactly that. It is my opinion that, if the debate is about parenting/adoption right, a majority of voters would vote to continue society's preference for straight couples over gay couples. I dont think the issue will arise in any case as the government have no intention of going further than civil partnership

p1akuw47h5r3it

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

You didnt bring up the issue of infertile couples and I have replied to the poster who did.
Infertile couples are not looking for marriage rights - they have that right already.
The LGBT Group is seeking same sex marriage laws to be passed. My point is that they are really seeking parenting/adoption rights. The national debate should be about exactly that. It is my opinion that, if the debate is about parenting/adoption right, a majority of voters would vote to continue society's preference for straight couples over gay couples. I dont think the issue will arise in any case as the government have no intention of going further than civil partnership

No they are really seeking the right to marry...

The Volt

We need to see a shift away from the notion that marriage has to be a religious thing. Why anyone would want to prevent two people in love from celebrating their happiness is beyond me.

Nodin

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

.................
We are not debating infertile hetrosexual couple.

You stated

I think thats the main problem with same sex marriage. One of the main purposes of marriage is to have children. The reality for same sex couples is that they cannot do this without the reproductive material from another human being - so I think the law has gone as far as it should.

(my bold)

Are you therefore stating that an inability to have children should only be considered as a factor inhibiting/preventing full legal marriage where homosexuals are concerned?

Duddy

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

Hoped by you I assume? I wouldn't share that hope and I would guess that a substantial majority of the Irish people would share my view that, all other things being equal, straight adoptive parents are to be favoured over gay adoptive parents. I wouldnt even agree with potential gay parents as a last resort, it shouldn't be an option at all.

Hoped by any sensible, fair minded individual, who disregards sexuality and takes into account a couple's ability to provide a loving home for a child.

After all, its evident that some heterosexual parents might pass on their archaic, bigoted views to their children;)

Coyler

Just to point out here, gay couples are already having kids. Plenty examples of lesbian couples raising children together. This then begs the question, has the non-biological parent no right with regards to the child she (or he) raises, cares and loves?

Or is the argument that should the biological parent die then the child should be placed in foster care to be adopted by another (heterosexual) family? Or at best be taken away from its home to be raised by close relatives?

At the moment in Ireland the latter is the preferred solution all in the name of caring for what's best for the child.

glic71rods46t0

Nodin wrote: »

You stated

(my bold)

Are you therefore stating that an inability to have children should only be considered as a factor inhibiting/preventing full legal marriage where homosexuals are concerned?

I would have no problem in same sex marriage if there were no consequences other than a nice day out for the 2 people concerned to declare their love for one another to their families and friends.
The reality however is that allowing such marriages then opens a can of worms regarding parenting and adoption rights in this country. I am against same sex marriage for that reason.

twinQuins

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

Hoped by you I assume? I wouldn't share that hope and I would guess that a substantial majority of the Irish people would share my view that, all other things being equal, straight adoptive parents are to be favoured over gay adoptive parents.[...]

Because... ?

To be honest, what you're saying here isn't really any different (or different at all) from what Duddy's said. And, as usual, I don't see any sort of reason why straight parents should be preferred.

Of course, that's probably because you already know there's no difference in straight or same-sex parents and are just choosing to ignore that point...

Nodin

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

I would have no problem in same sex marriage if there were no consequences other than a nice day out for the 2 people concerned to declare their love for one another to their families and friends.
The reality however is that allowing such marriages then opens a can of worms regarding parenting and adoption rights in this country. I am against same sex marriage for that reason.

And you're against same sex couples adopting because..........?

glic71rods46t0

Duddy wrote: »

Hoped by any sensible, fair minded individual, who disregards sexuality and takes into account a couple's ability to provide a loving home for a child.

After all, its evident that some heterosexual parents might pass on their archaic, bigoted views to their children;)

Thats a very fascist attitude - the implication of your post being that anyone who doesnt share your view is not sensible and not fair minded.
The thread is for sensible debate of the issues. I have put my views forward to be debated not to be insulted in the underhanded way you posted.

With regard to the adoption of children, fair minded sensible people take into account all factors to ensure that the decision made is in the best interests of the child, not the prospective parents. It is my view that, all other things being equal, placing a child into a hetrosexual family unit is immeasurably preferable to placing the child with a same sex couple.

glic71rods46t0

Coyler wrote: »

Just to point out here, gay couples are already having kids. Plenty examples of lesbian couples raising children together. This then begs the question, has the non-biological parent no right with regards to the child she (or he) raises, cares and loves?

Or is the argument that should the biological parent die then the child should be placed in foster care to be adopted by another (heterosexual) family? Or at best be taken away from its home to be raised by close relatives?

At the moment in Ireland the latter is the preferred solution all in the name of caring for what's best for the child.

Unless adopted, there is no such thing as a non biological parent, therefore the issue still comes back to adoption rights. Presently no such adoption rights exist in this country. I agree with this.

twinQuins

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

[...]It is my view that, all other things being equal, placing a child into a hetrosexual family unit is immeasurably preferable to placing the child with a same sex couple.

All things being equal there would be no difference. Hell, I could even link the studies that state as much, if you want.

glic71rods46t0

twinQuins wrote: »

Because... ?

To be honest, what you're saying here isn't really any different (or different at all) from what Duddy's said. And, as usual, I don't see any sort of reason why straight parents should be preferred.

Of course, that's probably because you already know there's no difference in straight or same-sex parents and are just choosing to ignore that point...

Nature requires hetrosexuals to create children. It is the natural order of things for children to have a male father and a female mother.
Children develop their sense of self and the world by virtue of their environment. The ideal environment for a child to grow up in with a male father and female mother - this is the societal norm.
For impressionable children to grow up in an environment where having gay parents seems normal is not in a childs best interests. Society (broader than just those of us who post on boards.ie) shares my views and such views are reflected in our legislation - as is the norm in democracies

amen

For impressionable children to grow up in an environment where having gay parents seems normal is not in a childs best interest

well is this is really true I assume that you would like legislation passed that is a child is born to a single parent and the single parent lives at home with her mother and there are no males in the house then the child should be removed?

After all there is no chance for the child to see both genders and to experience a "normal" childhood as a part of a family of loving hetorsexual parents?

All people irrespective of sex should be allowed to marry. Marriage in the state is a function of the state and should not be swayed by religion. If a religion does not want to marry someone that's fine but the state shouldn't stop them.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/portraits-of-gay-couples-just-married-in-new-york

look at these photos. Why would you stop these people being happy?

anymore

Excuse me being off thread, but why is there the distinction between gay men and gay women, as in ' lesbians'. Hetrosexuals dont seem to make this distinction.

glic71rods46t0

amen wrote: »

well is this is really true I assume that you would like legislation passed that is a child is born to a single parent and the single parent lives at home with her mother and there are no males in the house then the child should be removed?

After all there is no chance for the child to see both genders and to experience a "normal" childhood as a part of a family of loving hetorsexual parents?

All people irrespective of sex should be allowed to marry. Marriage in the state is a function of the state and should not be swayed by religion. If a religion does not want to marry someone that's fine but the state shouldn't stop them.



look at these photos. Why would you stop these people being happy?

Where did this come from. The state doesnt try to separate children from their single parents - and I didnt advocate any change to that position

Your opinion regarding the right to marriage for all irrespective of sex is overly simplifying the issue at hand. The issue is about parenting/adoption rights, which is where the debate needs to be

meditraitor

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

For impressionable children to grow up in an environment where having gay parents seems normal is not in a childs best interests. Society (broader than just those of us who post on boards.ie) shares my views and such views are reflected in our legislation - as is the norm in democracies

Ah, em, looks up to see what forum this is," darn", I wont get away with what I would really like to say.

Simply put, ignorance in an environment is going to really ruin an impressionable child........ There is no proof whatsoever that a child growing up in a happy heterosexual family unit is better suited to adulthood than a child growing up in happy homosexual family unit.

democracy is not fool proof, but an abundance of fools is common in all democracies since time immemorial....

glic71rods46t0

meditraitor wrote: »

Ah, em, looks up to see what forum this is," darn", I wont get away with what I would really like to say.

I'm intrigued - what do you *really* want to say???????

meditraitor wrote: »

Simply put, ignorance in an environment is going to really ruin an impressionable child........ There is no proof whatsoever that a child growing up in a happy heterosexual family unit is better suited to adulthood than a child growing up in happy homosexual family unit.

You are the one seeking to change the status quo - the burden of proof is on those seeking change to justify their position. I am comfortable with current societal norms ... and I am not willing to take chances on the well being of an impressionable child to leap out of some fascist perception of ignorance

meditraitor

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

You are the one seeking to change the status quo - the burden of proof is on those seeking change to justify their position. I am comfortable with current societal norms ... and I am not willing to take chances on the well being of an impressionable child to leap out of some fascist perception of ignorance

Me? no, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married,......but when ignorant backward unproven opinions are used as a bases for an argument I like to stick my nose in.

Manach

The state should /must defend marriage as per the constitution and the judicary have in numerous cases inferred that marriage is only between a Man/Woman as per the Jude-Christian belief system, and not whatever pressure groups demand to alter mores to fixate on their new utopia of unjudgement.
Same-sex unions are not marriages : These are state creations, and can remain as is. But same-sex marriage intrudes on the sphere of the generation family, and thus is wrong. Now, always.

glic71rods46t0

meditraitor wrote: »

Me? no, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married,......but when ignorant backward unproven opinions are used as a bases for an argument I like to stick my nose in.

Since when did an opinion need to be proven? I thought only facts had to be proven ....maybe I'm ignorant, but then again, ignorance in a debate such as this is probably a subjective term (a bit like an opinion);).

smiles302

I am a bit confused with the children issue...

Is the issue that if your partner has a biological child before you enter a civil partnership with them, you don't automatically get guardianship over the child?



Is there a difference between being a man married to the child's father and being the child's step-father?

Other than that, personally I don't think a person's marital status should have any effect over their rights to their biological children. You don't need to be married to have children, you shouldn't need to be married to be legally recognised as their parent.

Coyler

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

Unless adopted, there is no such thing as a non biological parent, therefore the issue still comes back to adoption rights. Presently no such adoption rights exist in this country. I agree with this.

You answered a question I did not ask. Quite simply, if a lesbian couple had a child, something they do quite commonly in this day and age, if the biological parent dies do you believe that the best interests of the child are served by completely ignoring the position of the other parent/guardian/carer in that family group? If they don't have rights then what do you propose are the best interests of that child?

There is nothing either from stopping same-sex couples from adopting in this country but only one of the couple can be a parent. So this same scenario can play out with a gay couple. If your concern is really based on the welfare of the child you'd support the ability for same-sex couples to avail of the step-parent adoption legislation. I fail to see how the alternative is a better scenario.

glic71rods46t0

Coyler wrote: »

You answered a question I did not ask. Quite simply, if a lesbian couple had a child, something they do quite commonly in this day and age, if the biological parent dies do you believe that the best interests of the child are served by completely ignoring the position of the other parent/guardian/carer in that family group? If they don't have rights then what do you propose are the best interests of that child?

There is nothing either from stopping same-sex couples from adopting in this country but only one of the couple can be a parent. So this same scenario can play out with a gay couple. If your concern is really based on the welfare of the child you'd support the ability for same-sex couples to avail of the step-parent adoption legislation. I fail to see how the alternative is a better scenario.

A child can have but 1 father and 1 mother. That is the natural order of things. The state must protect the institution of marriage and the family.
You cannot legislate for the whole population by reference to certain rare exceptional circumstances.

teol

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

The idea of the forum is to facilitate debate, so I guess what I want is a debate!

There should be no debate on civil rights issues. The right thing to do is to treat people equally. Anything else is just plain wrong.

SeanW

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

Hoped by you I assume? I wouldn't share that hope and I would guess that a substantial majority of the Irish people would share my view that, all other things being equal, straight adoptive parents are to be favoured over gay adoptive parents. I wouldnt even agree with potential gay parents as a last resort, it shouldn't be an option at all.

While it's reasonable to suggest that the statement in bold is correct, I highly doubt anyone but a rabid homophobic minority would share your views that gay couples should never adopt at all.

I think any sane person would prefer that a child be adopted by a gay family rather spend their childhood in an orphanage or bouncing around from one foster family to another. Using the full benefits of logic and compassion, it should be quite clear that the former case is better than the latter for an otherwise unwanted child.

At this point I'm prepared to speculate that both Manach and yuln6bap73hew1 are both hardline believers in one of the Abrahamic religions, as this might help to explain why your posts reek of homophobia.

RichieC

SeanW wrote: »

At this point I'm prepared to speculate that both Manach and Fencer are both hardline believers in one of the Abrahamic religions, as this might help to explain why your posts reek of homophobia.

I'd guess so too.

They don't want gay marriage or gay adoption because the child will grow up accepting of gay people, which is a big loss for them.

They don't give a crap about the welfare of children, they're just talking points to them.

nesf

RichieC wrote: »

They don't want gay marriage or gay adoption because the child will grow up accepting of gay people, which is a big loss for them..

You need neither gay adoption or gay marriage for that to happen. My kids are going to be brought up to respect gay people's right to their lifestyle regardless of what the laws on both are.

Zubeneschamali

Manach wrote: »

Same-sex unions are not marriages : These are state creations, and can remain as is.

Civil marriage is a state creation too.

yuln6bap73hew1

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

A child can have but 1 father and 1 mother. That is the natural order of things.

I love when people use a computer to post on an internet forum about what's "natural". And start using the is-ought problem.

glic71rods46t0

RichieC wrote: »

I'd guess so too.

They don't want gay marriage or gay adoption because the child will grow up accepting of gay people, which is a big loss for them.

They don't give a crap about the welfare of children, they're just talking points to them.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I, but the part of your post that I have emboldened is an outrageous and totally unfounded statement. Typical of certain types on here to make personal attacks rather than debate the issues.
Your post is a disgrace and I request that you withdraw it

glic71rods46t0

SeanW wrote: »

While it's reasonable to suggest that the statement in bold is correct, I highly doubt anyone but a rabid homophobic minority would share your views that gay couples should never adopt at all.

I think any sane person would prefer that a child be adopted by a gay family rather spend their childhood in an orphanage or bouncing around from one foster family to another. Using the full benefits of logic and compassion, it should be quite clear that the former case is better than the latter for an otherwise unwanted child.

At this point I'm prepared to speculate that both Manach and Fencer are both hardline believers in one of the Abrahamic religions, as this might help to explain why your posts reek of homophobia.

Wow, anything that doesnt agree with your world view reeks of homophobia???? FYI I do not follow any religion, although I, like most Irish people grew up as a catholic.
Read my posts I haven't come on here gay bashing. I am trying to have a debate on the real issue surrounding same sex marriage.

Your post suggests that there is a supply of unwanted children crying out to be adopted. This is simply not true and there are more hetrosexual couples seeking to adopt than there are children available to be adopted so the argument is not about gay couples being a better alternative to an orphanage