What now for gay marriage

glic71rods46t0

Looks like the Gilligan/Zappone Supreme Court appeal has failed.
Will proponents of gay marriage now concentrate on political action to attain their goal?
I think the LGBT "noise" campaign has been a failure. Time for some real politik but will the people of Ireland accept gay marriage?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Looks like the Gilligan/Zappone Supreme Court appeal has failed.
Will proponents of gay marriage now concentrate on political action to attain their goal?
I think the LGBT "noise" campaign has been a failure. Time for some real politik but will the people of Ireland accept gay marriage?

The people will and to a certain extent have. The more allegedly "moral" small minded core, though is the tricky bit.

It will happen eventually and we'll look back and think, why did we take so long to grant something so simply as basic civil rights to a section of society.

FreudianSlippers

Their appeal is going ahead, the SC only refused to allow them to amend their appeal to add grounds that Section 2.2 of the Civil Registration Act 2004 is unconstitutional.

They will probably be unsuccessful in the SC in all honesty, but that's probably a good thing; as they will be able to sue Ireland in the ECtHR after the SC decision.

glic71rods46t0

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The people will and to a certain extent have. The more allegedly "moral" small minded core, though is the tricky bit.

It will happen eventually and we'll look back and think, why did we take so long to grant something so simply as basic civil rights to a section of society.

How can you say "the people will and to a certain extent have". That doesnt make sense - either gay marriage is granted or it is not?????
Your assertion that the core are "small minded" is insulting and typical of the continued failure of the LGBT community engaging in persecution complex rather than real politics.
My own view is that the LGBT community will continue articulating attitudes like you posted and will get nowhere.

NewHillel

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They will probably be unsuccessful in the SC in all honesty, but that's probably a good thing; as they will be able to sue Ireland in the ECtHR after the SC decision.

Not a good thing, in my opinion,we need a more open and tolerant society. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to. It's not as if the traditional heterosexual marriage has been a rip roaring success. Live and let live - the moral high ground is a windy old spot.

glic71rods46t0

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Their appeal is going ahead, the SC only refused to allow them to amend their appeal to add grounds that Section 2.2 of the Civil Registration Act 2004 is unconstitutional.

They will probably be unsuccessful in the SC in all honesty, but that's probably a good thing; as they will be able to sue Ireland in the ECtHR after the SC decision.

I doubt any action to the ECHR will be successful - another waste of time just like the Supreme Court.
The strategy of going legal rather than the political route is an attempt to bypass the will of the people. A referendum on the subject would settle the issue - I wonder if the LGBT community would accept the result of a gay marriage referendum?

FreudianSlippers

NewHillel wrote: »

Not a good thing, in my opinion,we need a more open and tolerant society. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to. It's not as if the traditional heterosexual marriage has been a rip roaring success. Live and let live - the moral high ground is a windy old spot.

I agree, but I don't see it falling in line with our Constitution at the moment. A bollocking in front of the ECtHR may be just what Ireland needs to solve this injustice.

FreudianSlippers

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

I doubt any action to the ECHR will be successful - another waste of time just like the Supreme Court.
The strategy of going legal rather than the political route is an attempt to bypass the will of the people. A referendum on the subject would settle the issue - I wonder if the LGBT community would accept the result of a gay marriage referendum?

Well, we'll just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says first. Talking about ECtHR at this point is a bit premature.

I don't think the Supreme Court will be hearing this case until early next year.

glic71rods46t0

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well, we'll just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says first. Talking about ECtHR at this point is a bit premature.

I don't think the Supreme Court will be hearing this case until early next year.

Premature - You brought up the ECHR, not me!!!!!!!

FreudianSlippers

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Premature - You brought up the ECHR, not me!!!!!!!

You also said their appeal has failed.

I said that it will probably fail and they will have to take it to the ECtHR where, in light of other similar cases (see Schalk and Kopf v Austria) - generally put, the ECtHR was unwilling to interpret Art 12 of the ECHR to state that there was a positive obligation on any Member State to allow gay marriage.
However, this does not prevent those that currently do allow it to adapt their laws.

As a whole I think the case would go nowhere, but it may be interesting depending on exactly what the judgment of the Supreme Court says.

Ellis Dee

I suppose gay marriage will eventually be legislated for. And why not? Surely gays have the same right as the rest of us to sign up for a lifetime of misery.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

DjFlin

Seems insane to me that its not already legal.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I suppose gay marriage will eventually be legislated for. And why not? Surely gays have the same right as the rest of us to sign up for a lifetime of misery.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

And the award for most overused joke goes to.... :P

FreudianSlippers

DjFlin wrote: »

Seems insane to me that its not already legal.




And the award for most overused joke goes to.... :P

I like the ones in the US where they say "protect the sanctity of marriage? Ok: no more divorce until gay marriage is legal"

glic71rods46t0

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You also said their appeal has failed.

I said that it will probably fail and they will have to take it to the ECtHR where, in light of other similar cases (see Schalk and Kopf v Austria) - generally put, the ECtHR was unwilling to interpret Art 12 of the ECHR to state that there was a positive obligation on any Member State to allow gay marriage.
However, this does not prevent those that currently do allow it to adapt their laws.

As a whole I think the case would go nowhere, but it may be interesting depending on exactly what the judgment of the Supreme Court says.

So, on that basis there is little point in progressing a case to the ECHR - not much point in discussing that aspect at all then!

This from breakingnews seems to indicate that there basis for continuing an appeal is not certain:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/lesbian-couple-vow-to-continue-fight-on-same-sex-marriages-525510.html

oisindoyle

Can I as a gay man put this "gay marriage "thing to rest and ask people to refrain from useing it .
I parked my car this afternoon in town I didnt "gay park it " I parked it .
I also had lunch this afternoon I didnt have "gay lunch".
Gay people are not looking for gay marriage ,they want marriage,,,i.e. EQUALITY,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what's wrong with equality ?

NewHillel

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I agree, but I don't see it falling in line with our Constitution at the moment. A bollocking in front of the ECtHR may be just what Ireland needs to solve this injustice.

It will probably go nowwhere in the end. With all the problems we have, and all the scandals, (some) people still genuinely believe that the wold will cave in, of we dont keep up the myth of happy families.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

How can you say "the people will and to a certain extent have". That doesnt make sense - either gay marriage is granted or it is not?????
Your assertion that the core are "small minded" is insulting and typical of the continued failure of the LGBT community engaging in persecution complex rather than real politics.
My own view is that the LGBT community will continue articulating attitudes like you posted and will get nowhere.

Most people are in favour of gay marraige, at least on a civil level. Whether or not it's granted doesn't come down to the people, it comes down to the lawmakers and, as we know, they don't always go for the popular decision.

The core small minded people, I call them so, becaue their reasons for beign against it are usually badly formed to the point you alomost suspect homophobia. Some are against it for that reason.

I'm not a member of the LGBT community, so I don't know what their political stance is or how it mirrors my own.

glic71rods46t0

oisindoyle wrote: »

Can I as a gay man put this "gay marriage "thing to rest and ask people to refrain from useing it .
I parked my car this afternoon in town I didnt "gay park it " I parked it .
I also had lunch this afternoon I didnt have "gay lunch".
Gay people are not looking for gay marriage ,they want marriage,,,i.e. EQUALITY,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what's wrong with equality ?

Marriage is already defined both legally and culturally as an institution between man and woman. The LGBT community is seeking to change the definition.
Any gay person over the age of consent has the right to marry as per the legal definition. You are seeking a different right - the right to "marry" a same sex partner. I think its fair to describe that as gay marriage.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Marriage is already defined both legally and culturally as an institution between man and woman. The LGBT community is seeking to change the definition.
Any gay person over the age of consent has the right to marry as per the legal definition. You are seeking a different right - the right to "marry" a same sex partner. I think its fair to describe that as gay marriage.

Legally, yes; culturally, no.

Gay people can not get marraige, but the issue is equal union rights, such as taxes and inheritance, which as far as I know, is one of the main issues in the case quoted in the opening post.

glic71rods46t0

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Most people are in favour of gay marraige, at least on a civil level.

There is a lack of transparency regarding what the LGBT community are looking for. The main difference between civil partnership and marriage relates to parenting rights.
Opinion polls show, on the face of it, public acceptance of gay marriage, but, the very same opinion polls, when they ask the same people for an opinion on gay parenting rights show a substntial majority against this.
The obvious conclusion is that the issues involved are not being debated in a transparent manner.
Even the earlier poster objected to the label "gay marriage" in favour of "marriage"

Manach

I'd agree with Fencer, and hold to the traditional view of marriage as per the classic Hyde definition:
"What, then, is the nature of this institution as understood in Christendom?...If it be of common acceptance and existence, it must needs have some pervading identity and universal basis. I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."
Saying that, there are many contrary opinions to this voiced in this thread boards link

As for the ECHR, given a recent pronouncement against it by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge of England and Wales that they were 'not bound by ECHR's rulings'' perhaps this is something the Irish SC might take on board.

glic71rods46t0

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Legally, yes; culturally, no.

How so. Culturally in Ireland marriage is most definitely defined as man and woman. Please explain if you disagree?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Gay people can not get marraige, but the issue is equal union rights, such as taxes and inheritance, which as far as I know, is one of the main issues in the case quoted in the opening post.

Union rights have been dealt with by Civil Partnership. No need to extend this to marriage.

oisindoyle

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

How so. Culturally in Ireland marriage is most definitely defined as man and woman. Please explain if you disagree?

Union rights have been dealt with by Civil Partnership. No need to extend this to marriage.

There is nothing in the constitution that says marriage is defined as being that of man and woman .
Again I would ask that you stop calling it "gay mariage ",Gay people want equality ,thats all ,,,equality.
In the Civil Partnership Bill there are 169 differences between that (CP)and civil marriage,which gay people want ,,so yes there is every need to extend that to marriage

glic71rods46t0

oisindoyle wrote: »

There is nothing in the constitution that says marriage is defined as being that of man and woman .
Again I would ask that you stop calling it "gay mariage ",Gay people want equality ,thats all ,,,equality.
In the Civil Partnership Bill there are 169 differences between that (CP)and civil marriage,which gay people want ,,so yes there is every need to extend that to marriage

No disrespect but I will continue to call it gay marriage. I think it is disrespectful to transparancy to try to force people to drop the "gay" label.

Just to be clear, you have the same rights as I have to get married as per the legal definition. Its just that you would like to be able to "marry" someone of the same sex. You dont have that right - neither do I (although I wouldnt want to).

I fully support civil partnership - what are the 169 differences you refer to?

Dr Galen

We've been down this road with you before Fencer, could you outline for us your reasons for not wanting equality for same sex couples?

glic71rods46t0

Dr Galen wrote: »

We've been done this road with you before Fencer, could you outline for us your reasons for not wanting equality for same sex couples?

Who are the "us" (my bold) you purport to speak for? Oh and report posted!

Dr Galen

sorry Fencer, I mean us as in the the other posters, nothing more sinister. If I remember rightly there was a pretty decent discussion previously about this topic before, which you were involved in.

Your concerns are essentially around parenting rights, would that be correct?

glic71rods46t0

Dr Galen wrote: »

sorry Fencer, I mean us as in the the other posters, nothing more sinister. If I remember rightly there was a pretty decent discussion previously about this topic before, which you were involved in.

Your concerns are essentially around parenting rights, would that be correct?

Apology accepted.

My main issue is that any changes to the status quo should be by political means. I think the strategy of trying to force the issue by appeals to the Supreme Court and/or ECHR is an attempt to bypass the will of the people and force the public to accept that we our views are irrelevant because we are behind the times or just plain "small minded".

I have no vested interest either way and I would generally regard myself as reasonably liberal. I have reflected on my position since the last thread and would now be more open to the idea if a legitimate political debate occured to help inform my opinion and, more importantly the general electorates opinion on the topic.

I continue to hold the view that parenting rights is the substantive issue. I really wish that a mature debate would ensue

Teclo

Human history and biology tell us that marriage is between a man and a woman. A state that opens marriage to people of the same sex effectively does not have an institution of marriage, in it's place just a new form of civil partnership.

http://youtu.be/WQ1YmU1nYdQ

glic71rods46t0

Teclo wrote: »

Human history and biology tell us that marriage is between a man and a woman. A state that opens marriage to people of the same sex effectively does not have an institution of marriage, in it's place just a new form of civil partnership.

http://youtu.be/WQ1YmU1nYdQ

With respect I don't think that would qualify as mature debate. I am certain that the LGBT community regard the issue as a serious one and detractors should show enough respect to engage in reasoned debate on the issues.

I have an issue with gay parenting . All things being equal I regard it as inferior to traditional father & mother parenting.

Nodin

Teclo wrote: »

Human history and biology tell us that marriage is between a man and a woman. A state that opens marriage to people of the same sex effectively does not have an institution of marriage, in it's place just a new form of civil partnership.

http://youtu.be/WQ1YmU1nYdQ

Marriage is a human societal construct and has no biological basis per se.

glic71rods46t0

Nodin wrote: »

Marriage is a human societal construct and has no biological basis per se.

Agreed. But I would add that, for many, its a religious construct.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

There is a lack of transparency regarding what the LGBT community are looking for. The main difference between civil partnership and marriage relates to parenting rights.
Opinion polls show, on the face of it, public acceptance of gay marriage, but, the very same opinion polls, when they ask the same people for an opinion on gay parenting rights show a substntial majority against this.
The obvious conclusion is that the issues involved are not being debated in a transparent manner.
Even the earlier poster objected to the label "gay marriage" in favour of "marriage"

Gay marriage/Civil Union is different from adoptaion rights (I assume you don't mean parenting rights - everyone has those) and the blurring of the lines and trying to combine the two or use one to create fear of the opther is bull****.

We're talking basic citizen rights here: the right to legally share your life with another adult on a legal level.

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

How so. Culturally in Ireland marriage is most definitely defined as man and woman. Please explain if you disagree?

Union rights have been dealt with by Civil Partnership. No need to extend this to marriage.

Similar to above: most people accept that there are gay people in perfectly acceptable relationships and are fine with it. Legally and constitutaionally is the only place you will see a specific definitaion where it says men and woman.

What we are talking here is two people making a life-long committment to each other. Be they same homosexual or heterosexual. Culturally, a lot of people have accepted that this exists and are comfortbale with it. This is what I mean by calling it culturally acceptable.

If you disagree, then what, culturally speaking, is the difference between a life-long relationship and a marrigae.

Union rights have been dealt with by Civil Partnership. No need to extend this to marriage.

No, they haven't.

marienbad

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Apology accepted.

My main issue is that any changes to the status quo should be by political means. I think the strategy of trying to force the issue by appeals to the Supreme Court and/or ECHR is an attempt to bypass the will of the people and force the public to accept that we our views are irrelevant because we are behind the times or just plain "small minded".

I have no vested interest either way and I would generally regard myself as reasonably liberal. I have reflected on my position since the last thread and would now be more open to the idea if a legitimate political debate occured to help inform my opinion and, more importantly the general electorates opinion on the topic.

I continue to hold the view that parenting rights is the substantive issue. I really wish that a mature debate would ensue

Gay people already have parenting rights nuxlrzqspd76ca ! there are gay parents throughout the land , so I presume you mean adoption rights ?

In the interests of consistency therefore do you think those parents with children living in committed gay relationships should have those parenting rights withdrawn or what ?

Mike 1972

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

A referendum on the subject would settle the issue

Why is a referendum necessary ?

glic71rods46t0

marienbad wrote: »

Gay people already have parenting rights Fencer ! there are gay parents throughout the land , so I presume you mean adoption rights ?

In the interests of consistency therefore do you think those parents with children living in committed gay relationships should have those parenting rights withdrawn or what ?

Yes, adoptive rights is what I meant - mea culpa!
There are many problems with extending partenting rights to the gay partner of a biological parent including the dimunition of the rights of the other biological parent. I have a general reservation with gay parenting and worry about the effects of such a "family" unit setting for the development of children (I have serious reservations regarding the "studies" which show no efects or, even more amazingly, positive effects!)

glic71rods46t0

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Why is a referendum necessary ?

Because gay marriage is at odds with the courts interpretation of our constitution - maybe your question would be more appropriate in the legal forum?

BluntGuy

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Apology accepted.

My main issue is that any changes to the status quo should be by political means. I think the strategy of trying to force the issue by appeals to the Supreme Court and/or ECHR is an attempt to bypass the will of the people and force the public to accept that we our views are irrelevant because we are behind the times or just plain "small minded".

If getting access to what should be your right anyway means bypassing the supposed "will of the people", I don't see why that's such a disagreeable thing. I'm not quite sure why it's so important that "the people" are consulted for their opinion on whether or not you are to be treated as an equal citizen of your country.

This legal avenue doesn't look set to pay any kind of direct dividends, but I certainly don't begrudge them for trying.

oisindoyle

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

No disrespect but I will continue to call it gay marriage. I think it is disrespectful to transparancy to try to force people to drop the "gay" label.

Just to be clear, you have the same rights as I have to get married as per the legal definition. Its just that you would like to be able to "marry" someone of the same sex. You dont have that right - neither do I (although I wouldnt want to).

I fully support civil partnership - what are the 169 differences you refer to?

Well actually it is disrespectful.Gay people want equality ,IF and when we do there will be the term which we all want i.e. CIVIL MARRIAGE ,why you insist in calling it gay marriage is disrespectful and gives the impression that you are somehow superior ,you're not .

As for the latter part "you have the same rights as I have to get married as per legal definition ect ect is a complete and uttet nonsense.You are being quite patroniseing and offensive ,you know perfectly well that gay people CANNOT get married ,they have not the same rights as hetrosexual people and its NOT just down to parental rights.

Perhaps if you have a look at the link and click on "missing pieces " it will enlighten your narrow mindedness.
http://marriageequality.ie/

You also said "I think the strategy of trying to force the issue by appeals to the Supreme Court and/or ECHR is an attempt to bypass the will of the people and force the public to accept that we our views are irrelevant because we are behind the times or just plain "small minded",,,,

That is an extremely offensive comment is ever there was one .YOUR views are irrevelant ? excuse me but you are implying that I have to ask YOUR permission if I want to get married to someone I love.
Since when has a hetrosexual person had to ask me to get married .Your views come across are extremely bigoted.
You go on to say "I have an issue with gay parenting . All things being equal I regard it as inferior to traditional father & mother parenting"

And you call yourself a "LIBERAL"........!!!!

oisindoyle

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Yes, adoptive rights is what I meant - mea culpa!
There are many problems with extending partenting rights to the gay partner of a biological parent including the dimunition of the rights of the other biological parent. I have a general reservation with gay parenting and worry about the effects of such a "family" unit setting for the development of children (I have serious reservations regarding the "studies" which show no efects or, even more amazingly, positive effects!)

What a shokcing statement ....
So you disbelieve studies and fear what? that the children of gay parents will be turn out to be gay or abused is it ??

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Yes, adoptive rights is what I meant - mea culpa!
There are many problems with extending partenting rights to the gay partner of a biological parent including the dimunition of the rights of the other biological parent. I have a general reservation with gay parenting and worry about the effects of such a "family" unit setting for the development of children (I have serious reservations regarding the "studies" which show no efects or, even more amazingly, positive effects!)

That doesn't make sense. A gay man is okay to raise a child, but his partner isn't?

Seriously, though, what studies have you got reservations about and why? I mean, yes, studies can be misleading or wrong, but that doesn't explain what reservations you have or why.

And again, what does this have to do with gay marriage?

glic71rods46t0

oisindoyle wrote: »

Well actually it is disrespectful.Gay people want equality ,IF and when we do there will be the term which we all want i.e. CIVIL MARRIAGE ,why you insist in calling it gay marriage is disrespectful and gives the impression that you are somehow superior ,you're not .

As for the latter part "you have the same rights as I have to get married as per legal definition ect ect is a complete and uttet nonsense.You are being quite patroniseing and offensive ,you know perfectly well that gay people CANNOT get married ,they have not the same rights as hetrosexual people and its NOT just down to parental rights.

Perhaps if you have a look at the link and click on "missing pieces " it will enlighten your narrow mindedness.
http://marriageequality.ie/

You also said "I think the strategy of trying to force the issue by appeals to the Supreme Court and/or ECHR is an attempt to bypass the will of the people and force the public to accept that we our views are irrelevant because we are behind the times or just plain "small minded",,,,

That is an extremely offensive comment is ever there was one .YOUR views are irrevelant ? excuse me but you are implying that I have to ask YOUR permission if I want to get married to someone I love.
Since when has a hetrosexual person had to ask me to get married .Your views come across are extremely bigoted.
You go on to say "I have an issue with gay parenting . All things being equal I regard it as inferior to traditional father & mother parenting"

And you call yourself a "LIBERAL"........!!!!

I am genuinely trying to engage with the LGBT community and seeking a reasonable debate on the issues.
I resent being labelled bigoted. I am here engaging in debate.
I have never stated that I wanted you to seek my permission to marry the person you love.

Your problem is that marriage is not permissible for same sex couples and would require a consitutional change to allow it.
A constitutional change requires a referendum and in my opinion a mature reasoned debate to inform and/or change opinions. My opinion is open enough to be persuaded by logical reasoning and I welcome such a debate.
I continue to resent unfounded allegations of bigotry!

glic71rods46t0

oisindoyle wrote: »

What a shokcing statement ....
So you disbelieve studies QUOTE]
Yes

oisindoyle wrote: »

that the children of gay parents will be turn out to be gay or abused is it ??

that the children will have difficulties with gender issues and endure discrimination for the choices of their "parents" mainly

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

that the children will have difficulties with gender issues and endure discrimination for the choices of their "parents" mainly

And your reasons for beleiving this are based on what exactly? IF you want reasoned debate, you're going to have to back this up with something. I'd also like to know why you think this is a factor for gay partners who don't have kids and don't want kids.

glic71rods46t0

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. A gay man is okay to raise a child, but his partner isn't?

A gay father is ok but a gay father figure (i.e. non biological parent) I have reservations about but more particularly a same sex couple taking ove a mother/father role in a family

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Seriously, though, what studies have you got reservations about and why? I mean, yes, studies can be misleading or wrong, but that doesn't explain what reservations you have or why.

I havent seen any study that I can believe in. many are seriously flawed and the political aspirations of the authors of some taint the "results"

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And again, what does this have to do with gay marriage?

In my opinion gay marriage is really about gay parenting

glic71rods46t0

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And your reasons for beleiving this are based on what exactly? IF you want reasoned debate, you're going to have to back this up with something. I'd also like to know why you think this is a factor for gay partners who don't have kids and don't want kids.

I would fully support any changes to make up for any shortcomings in civil partnership vis a vis marriage excluding parenting issues.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

A gay father is ok but a gay father figure (i.e. non biological parent) I have reservations about but more particularly a same sex couple taking ove a mother/father role in a family


I havent seen any study that I can believe in. many are seriously flawed and the political aspirations of the authors of some taint the "results"


In my opinion gay marriage is really about gay parenting

1 - Again, why?
2 - Which is fine, but I asked what studies you have seen and why you disagreed with the results. In what way were they flawed?
3 - Again, why?

glic71rods46t0

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

1 - Again, why?
2 - Which is fine, but I asked what studies you have seen and why you disagreed with the results. In what way were they flawed?
3 - Again, why?

With all due respect I feel that you are not respecting my posts.

NewHillel

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

I have a general reservation with gay parenting and worry about the effects of such a "family" unit setting for the development of children (I have serious reservations regarding the "studies" which show no efects or, even more amazingly, positive effects!)

You appear to suggest that a Gay couple cannot form a family unit. (Or have I misunderstood your use of quotes?) It is a logical follow on that you would be concerned about gay parenting.

Why? Being gay is not a disease, that can be passed on to children. Studies show that children suffer no I'll effects.

Unfortunately, it is entrenched attitudes that makes the need for legal redres the most likely route to achieving equality. I'm not surprised by this - I believe that it reflects the religious ethos that prevails in schools. In my opinion just one indicator of the need to move towards a more secular society, particularly in the educational sector.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

With all due respect I feel that you are not respecting my posts.

I resepct your opinions, but you wanted debate and this is debate. Part of debate is examining the validity of the other person's reasoning behind the opinion which so far you have blatantly avoided doing.

jill_valentine

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

In my opinion gay marriage is really about gay parenting

I hope it's of some consolation to know that it's an opinion which many, if not most, gay folks don't share.