The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

NuMarvel

lmaopml wrote: »

A child who is loved and who's parents are involved in their life, both the father and mother, well studies show that they benefit from this - from a purely objective point of view.

That may be the case, but it's not relevant in this context. Any child in a family with gay parents is a child that wouldn't have been in a family with its biological parents in the first place. That applies equally to adoption, surrogacy, or a child from a previous relationship. In all of those cases, the biological parents have already decided, for whatever reasons, not to raise their child as a combined parental unit. There is still room for the involvement of both biological parents, but it's a third party to the primary caregivers.

And that's not unique to gay couples either. Many heterosexual couples are in the same position.

lmaopml wrote: »

If Christianity supports this foundation and building block of society as the 'ideal' foundation of a child's life than possibly there is some truth in there no?

I think you've fallen into a misconception. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no study that shows any one family type is "ideal". To make that assessment, the study has to compare all the various family types and I'm not aware of any studies that have done that.

They might say that when a child has their biological parents present, certain characteristics present themselves, and these are seen as positive for the child's development. But other posters have taken that to mean other family types are somehow lesser, a conclusion that none of the researchers involved come to.

As an aside to everyone in general, anyone thinking of putting forward any specific study to support any particular assertion about family types needs to read this post first.

lmaopml wrote: »

- However, it's so very difficult to adopt a child that more often than not an adoption agency will choose a family environment with both a male and a female - and this is not an accident, it's based on the research that shows that it is the best environment where possible.

There has been no such study that I'm aware of. In fact, a recent study by UCD found that family type wasn't a predictor as to how highly children would rate in terms of well being. Education, largely the mother's education, was.

"The educational level of mothers is the strongest and most pervasive predictor of children’s well-being examined in the study. On all four indicators of children’s well-being which are analysed – reading and mathematics ability at age nine, social-emotional adjustment and presence or absence of chronic illness – the children of less educated mothers are at a disadvantage and this is especially true of reading and mathematics ability"

"Once resource differences are controlled for, family type is not a strong predictor: differences in the four indicators of child well-being between two-parent married families, cohabiting families, step-families and lone parent families are slight or absent."

“All other things being equal, this research reveals that it is more important for children’s well-being that they have well-educated parents (particularly in the case of the mother) than that they have parents who stay together.”

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2013/01JAN13/140113-Mothers-education-trumps-marriage-or-co-habitation-when-it-comes-to-well-being-of-children-study-shows.html

If anyone's curious, the father's education wasn't examined as a factor because it was unavailable in over 20% of cases. So it's not just that us menfolk are stoopid .

lmaopml

NuMarvel wrote: »

That may be the case, but it's not relevant in this context. Any child in a family with gay parents is a child that wouldn't have been in a family with its biological parents in the first place.

Well that goes without saying.

That applies equally to adoption, surrogacy, or a child from a previous relationship. In all of those cases, the biological parents have already decided, for whatever reasons, not to raise their child as a combined parental unit. There is still room for the involvement of both biological parents, but it's a third party to the primary caregivers.

OK, that's a fact, but how does it impact the fact that a mother and father bringing up their child together are a positive influence?

And that's not unique to gay couples either. Many heterosexual couples are in the same position.

Yes, we are but what relevance has that?

I think you've fallen into a misconception. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no study that shows any one family type is "ideal". To make that assessment, the study has to compare all the various family types and I'm not aware of any studies that have done that.

Seriously? lol

They might say that when a child has their biological parents present, certain characteristics present themselves, and these are seen as positive for the child's development.

Well that's just it - Thanks, that's the truth. Difficult, but true.

But other posters have taken that to mean other family types are somehow lesser, a conclusion that none of the researchers involved come to.

Neither did I. Just in case you didn't notice.

As an aside to everyone in general, anyone thinking of putting forward any specific study to support any particular assertion about family types needs to read this post first.

Maybe tomorrow, I've had enough for just one night of having to read a v bulletin on boards in order to know what I think.

There has been no such study that I'm aware of. In fact, a recent study by UCD found that family type wasn't a predictor as to how highly children would rate in terms of well being. Education, largely the mother's education, was.

Yeah this is true! It never diminished a fathers role however?

"The educational level of mothers is the strongest and most pervasive predictor of children’s well-being examined in the study. On all four indicators of children’s well-being which are analysed – reading and mathematics ability at age nine, social-emotional adjustment and presence or absence of chronic illness – the children of less educated mothers are at a disadvantage and this is especially true of reading and mathematics ability"

"Once resource differences are controlled for, family type is not a strong predictor: differences in the four indicators of child well-being between two-parent married families, cohabiting families, step-families and lone parent families are slight or absent."[/quote]

Well apparently according to your post all a child needs is their mother for their natural well being to be nurtured - lets not forget that functioning in math and science is paramount!

“All other things being equal, this research reveals that it is more important for children’s well-being that they have well-educated parents (particularly in the case of the mother) than that they have parents who stay together.”

Yeah.

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2013/01JAN13/140113-Mothers-education-trumps-marriage-or-co-habitation-when-it-comes-to-well-being-of-children-study-shows.html

Fathers are just really a side note I guess. Not necessary - just volunteers.

If anyone's curious, the father's education wasn't examined as a factor because it was unavailable in over 20% of cases. So it's not just that us menfolk are stoopid .

Well, it's really nice to know that some men folk know that they are not stoopid!

Benny_Cake

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

My post was edited as if by divine intervention - now I remember why I never come to this forum...

It may have been divine intervention because it wasn't edited by a mod. I suspect, though, that it's down to incorrect use of the embed facility. If you have a problem with moderation, deal with it via PM rather than throwing around accusations on thread.

DEFTLEFTHAND

We all interpret the Lord's word differently through the book and gospels. That's my honest opinion, there's no Christian on this planet today who knows any more.

We shouldn't judge those with a queer sexual interest because we aren't entitled to do so. The Lord will decide their fate.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

He what? pushing it a bit with that one I think. I cant for the life of me see how God established the state.

Romans 13
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

There is of course debate in historical circles as to whether Paul ever actually wrote this, or whether it was inserted into his letters at a later date by someone looking to make Christians more submissive to the current government. But then sure if the whole thing is controlled by God I'm sure he wouldn't have allowed that to happen, lulz

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

There is of course debate in historical circles as to whether Paul ever actually wrote this, or whether it was inserted into his letters at a later date by someone looking to make Christians more submissive to the current government. But then sure if the whole thing is controlled by God I'm sure he wouldn't have allowed that to happen, lulz

If one is to claim it was added, one needs to also back up that claim for it to be taken seriously. For example, we need to see in the manuscripts that there was a progressive change at some point in time.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

We all interpret the Lord's word differently through the book and gospels. That's my honest opinion, there's no Christian on this planet today who knows any more.

We shouldn't judge those with a queer sexual interest because we aren't entitled to do so. The Lord will decide their fate.

It's not about judging, it's about not agreeing. They are different things.

I'm no better than anyone else in respect to sin. That's the whole point of Christianity.

Zombrex

Just to clear up some suggesting in earlier posts.

In Ireland we do not have an American style adoption system, where pretty much anyone can adopt if they have enough money and adoptions are handled as private exchanges between individuals with little over sight

In Ireland it is very difficult to adopt and you are assessed by rigorously before you are even considered for adoption. And as far as I know new laws have been brought in that require this rigorous assessment even if you are adopting abroad.

So it is not the case that if we legalise gay marriage any gay couple will now be able to just walk away with a baby, since that isn't the case for straight couples.

There is a lot of talk about a man and a woman being the "ideal" couple to raise a child. Like most of the Christian arguments on this thread so far that is gross, some would say irresponsible, simplication of the realities.

Gender role models are important for children. The studies that Christians like to cite detailing that children, particular boys, raised without a father do worse than those raised with a father a real, they do exist. But again Christians pushing them as evidence for the need for "traditional" marriage clearly haven't actually studied the studies in any great deal.

The vast majority of these studies come from one parent families where the mother is raising the child on their own and the child is in deprived areas. The male role models that emerge in these areas are more often than not negative, such as gang leaders and other such criminals.

The cast has been made that if these kids had strong male role models in the form of a father they would do better. The reality is that a strong male role model in the form of anyone they do better. This is why a lot of money is putting to preventative programs in places like Chicago where ex-gang members go back into the areas and lead programs designed to give these kids someone to look up to that isn't a gang member.

It is the responsibility of all parents to provide their children with positive role models in their lives that extend beyond just themselves. Parent naturally would like to think that they themselves will be a positive role model, but it is naive to think that they should, or can, be the only ones.

This applies to gay couples as much as anyone. A woman/woman couple raising a child need to be aware that their children, both men and women, will need exposure to positive male role models in order to shape the mental view these children develop about men.

But this is true even of man/woman couples. It would be naive that I as a man will be able to provide all the different aspects of my gender to any future children I have.

I could go on and on about this, but the point is that boiling down all this detailed research, and all that parents can learn about how to help the development of their children, into the almost child like notion that man/woman is ideal is a ridiculous and rather dangerous, simplification of what is happening and what can be learned.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Romans 13
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

There is of course debate in historical circles as to whether Paul ever actually wrote this, or whether it was inserted into his letters at a later date by someone looking to make Christians more submissive to the current government. But then sure if the whole thing is controlled by God I'm sure he wouldn't have allowed that to happen, lulz

The irony here is that so many 'states' have been replaced mostly by people inspire by Judaic Christian values that God must be playing both sides against the middle. Again submission isn't the christian message, if they want that then start here;http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

The irony here is that so many 'states' have been replaced mostly by people inspire by Judaic Christian values that God must be playing both sides against the middle. Again submission isn't the christian message, if they want that then start here;http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/

Well the Christian message is that judgement is just around the corner so it is far better to be focusing on individual holiness than worrying about what the government is doing. Render unto Ceaser and all that jazz.

But then of course judgement didn't come, and Christians for 2000 years have found themselves back in the land of living and attempting to structure society around what they see as Christian principles, a concept that would have been seen as alien and unnecessary to both Paul and Jesus.

I mean if I told you tomorrow the world was going to end so forget about things like legislation on abortion and just make peace with your friends, family and God, that would seem reasonable advice. But then if the world doesn't end ...

Modern Christians have the problem of trying to square the circle of applying instructions on how to live in the moments before the apocalypse to a world where the apocalypse never came.

Anyway, some what off topic. The point is that both Paul and Jesus instructed Christians to unburden themselves from influencing issues of government and laws. As an atheists I fully support Jesus in this regard :P

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

The irony here is that so many 'states' have been replaced mostly by people inspire by Judaic Christian values that God must be playing both sides against the middle. Again submission isn't the christian message, if they want that then start here;http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/

I disagree.

Christians are called to submit to the will of God. It's very clear Scripturally. Some people think I'm too banal about the importance of Scripture. However if we are to truly have any insight into the will of God it's important to read it and pore over it as Christians together.

James 4:7-8 wrote:

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

Also speaking about marriage in Ephesians 5:22-33 Paul mentions that the church submits itself to Christ (Ephesians 5:24).

Moreover, I disagree with Zombrex' interpretation of Christians and the coming judgement. I don't believe that Mark 13 for example gives us sufficient reason to believe that Jesus would return in the life time of those who first saw him. I'd be of the mind that it is referring to Jesus' ascension as the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days which is prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14 which indeed did happen in their generation. There's nothing explicit to say that it is referring specifically to the end of the world. As did the destruction of the Temple. Those things did indeed happen in their generation.

I also disagree with his assumption that it was believed that it was coming soon. The Bible's clear that nobody knows the day or the hour, and it is also clear from Peter's second letter that people shouldn't say that God is incompetent because the return of Christ would take a long time, the reason it is is because there are still people to be saved (2 Peter 3).

Hopefully he'll take me off ignore so we can actually discuss this.

Bannasidhe

NuMarvel wrote: »

That may be the case, but it's not relevant in this context. Any child in a family with gay parents is a child that wouldn't have been in a family with its biological parents in the first place. That applies equally to adoption, surrogacy, or a child from a previous relationship. In all of those cases, the biological parents have already decided, for whatever reasons, not to raise their child as a combined parental unit. There is still room for the involvement of both biological parents, but it's a third party to the primary caregivers.

Just a correction on this point. My son was raised by gay parents one of whom is his biological mother. My nephew was raised by straight parents one of whom is his biological mother. The difference was that the non-biological parent of my son was never legally recognised as having any familial connection to him, my sister's husband was able to adopt her son.

Two boys, two years apart in age. Same family.

One 'condemned' to be officially the child of a single parent even through he had always had two parents, the other was 'granted' the benefit of two parents even though he was 10 years old when he first met the man who became his legal father.

Q. Why was my son denied all these benefits of growing up with married parents we hear extolled while my nephew was able to avail of them?

A. Because I am a lesbian and my sister is straight. It is as simple as that.


Most children raised by LGBT couples are biologically related to one of them. Not only that - Those children who were born into LGBT families, as as opposed to those who were from previous heterosexual relationships, not one of them are 'accidents'. No contraceptive failure led to their conception, no drunken one night stand, they are not 'mistakes'. They were planned, a great deal of effort, time, money, and preparation was put into their conception and arrival. Would that every child who was brought into this world could say the same.

I know a great many children (a lot of whom are adults with children themselves now) who were raised by LGBT couples. I know only one who was adopted - the rest were/are all living with a biological parent.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just a correction on this point. My son was raised by gay parents one of whom is his biological mother. My nephew was raised by straight parents one of whom is his biological mother. The difference was that the non-biological parent of my son was never legally recognised as having any familial connection to him, my sister's husband was able to adopt her son.

Two boys, two years apart in age. Same family.

One 'condemned' to be officially the child of a single parent even through he had always had two parents, the other was 'granted' the benefit of two parents even though he was 10 years old when he first met the man who became his legal father.

Q. Why was my son denied all these benefits of growing up with married parents we hear extolled while my nephew was able to avail of them?

A. Because I am a lesbian and my sister is straight. It is as simple as that.


Most children raised by LGBT couples are biologically related to one of them. Not only that - Those children who were born into LGBT families, as as opposed to those who were from previous heterosexual relationships, not one of them are 'accidents'. No contraceptive failure led to their conception, no drunken one night stand, they are not 'mistakes'. They were planned, a great deal of effort, time, money, and preparation was put into their conception and arrival. Would that every child who was brought into this world could say the same.

I know a great many children (a lot of whom are adults with children themselves now) who were raised by LGBT couples. I know only one who was adopted - the rest were/are all living with a biological parent.

I don't agree with the insinuation that somehow a huge proportion of those who are conceived by heterosexuals are "accidents". I would argue that in those cases where they are because of contraceptive failure and so on a great deal of these involve cases that are outside of a marital context.

I can sympathise in respect to families, but I do think that this whole area of sperm donation and surrogate motherhood is a biological minefield and it's one that doesn't need to arise in a heterosexual family. I also think there are legal complexities and some of them are very justified complexities.

For example this week a court ruled that sperm donors should have the right to see children. I agree with this, I think that they should have that right. Obviously for families who want to be seen as mother and mother or father and father this is going to be difficult, but at the same time because it is because of the very fact that children arise biologically from the sexual union (or the fusion of sperm and ova using other means) between a man and a woman that families do have biological origins this is always going to arise.

Edit: This is another grounds on which the race argument falls. Irrespective of race, there is still no biological difference in how children are conceived. This isn't true of homosexual relationships. Surrogates and sperm donors amongst other things are needed.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

I don't agree with the insinuation that somehow a huge proportion of those who are conceived by heterosexuals are "accidents". I would argue that in those cases where they are because of contraceptive failure and so on a great deal of these involve cases that are outside of a marital context.

I insinuated nothing of the kind. Do stop twisting my word to suit your agenda. I said it never happens among LBGT couples.

Do you deny that heterosexuals get pregnant by accident?

If they didn't we wouldn't be having a national debate about abortion...

I can sympathise in respect to families, but I do think that this whole area of sperm donation and surrogate motherhood is a biological minefield and it's one that doesn't need to arise in a heterosexual family. I also think there are legal complexities and some of them are very justified complexities.


For example this week a court ruled that sperm donors should have the right to see children. I agree with this, I think that they should have that right. Obviously for families who want to be seen as mother and mother or father and father this is going to be difficult, but at the same time because it is because of the very fact that children arise biologically from the sexual union (or the fusion of sperm and ova using other means) between a man and a woman that families do have biological origins this is always going to arise.

You are making some huge assumptions here, not least that 'sperm donors' as you call them have no involvement. My 'sperm donor' actually met his 'son' and it was his decision not to be involved. My sister's 'sperm donor' announced he was a married man after he found out she was pregnant - a married man whose wife was also pregnant. He doesn't even know he has (another - he already had 2) son because he walked away.

I know a great many 'sperm donors' (gay and straight) who are incredibly active in the children lives. This may come as a surprise to you, but all of these issues are thrashed out prior to conception and an agreement is reached before any sperm is 'donated'.

I also know straight men who have children they have never seen, or walked away from. They seem to have had no issue with 'donating' sperm being their full and total involvement.

If some straight men didn't just walk away from their children and abdicate all responsibility our family courts would be much quieter places. Perhaps you have never heard the term 'Deadbeat Dad'?

Heterosexual couples avail of surrogacy too - have you not been reading the papers? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0125/1224329254189.html

As for your 'sympathy', with the greatest of respect Philo, you can shove your sympathy where the sun don't shine. There was no reason why my son and my nephew were placed on different legal footing other than myself, my partner and my son being denied rights which were available to my sister, her new husband and my nephew as soon as sister signed the Marriage Register.

My son was denied the benefits of two legally recognised parents only because his parents were of the same gender.

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

I can sympathise in respect to families, but I do think that this whole area of sperm donation and surrogate motherhood is a biological minefield and it's one that doesn't need to arise in a heterosexual family. I also think there are legal complexities and some of them are very justified complexities.

For example this week a court ruled that sperm donors should have the right to see children. I agree with this, I think that they should have that right. Obviously for families who want to be seen as mother and mother or father and father this is going to be difficult, but at the same time because it is because of the very fact that children arise biologically from the sexual union (or the fusion of sperm and ova using other means) between a man and a woman that families do have biological origins this is always going to arise.

The issue of sperm donation and surrogacy does arise in families with heterosexual parents. There's a case concerning surrogacy before a High Court judge as we speak.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0131/breaking38.html

As for sperm donors rights of access, that's something that can arise just as much when a heterosexual couple use sperm donation. The subheadline makes that clear: Case assists donors to see biological children reared by straight or gay couples, and prompts calls for co-parenting deals.

There is no doubt that there are major complexities, but to believe that they are exclusive to families with gay parents is incorrect. What makes it more complex for gay parents in Ireland is that there is NO legislation covering the rights of children with gay parents. UK law doesn't seem to have that difficulty.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I insinuated nothing of the kind. Do stop twisting my word to suit your agenda. I said it never happens among LBGT couples.

Do you deny that heterosexuals get pregnant by accident?

If they didn't we wouldn't be having a national debate about abortion...

I agree, we wouldn't be. We wouldn't be having a debate on abortion full stop if we didn't have the philosophy we do concerning sexuality.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are making some huge assumptions here, not least that 'sperm donors' as you call them have no involvement. My 'sperm donor' actually met his 'son' and it was his decision not to be involved. My sister's 'sperm donor' announced he was a married man after he found out she was pregnant - a married man whose wife was also pregnant. He doesn't even know he has (another - he already had 2) son because he walked away.

I know a great many 'sperm donors' (gay and straight) who are incredibly active in the children lives. This may come as a surprise to you, but all of these issues are thrashed out prior to conception and an agreement is reached before any sperm is 'donated'.

I also know straight men who have children they have never seen, or walked away from. They seem to have had no issue with 'donating' sperm being their full and total involvement.

I'm saying that there should be legal protection, and I think a lot of people in LGBT families would have huge concerns even if others don't.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If some straight men didn't just walk away from their children and abdicate all responsibility our family courts would be much quieter places. Perhaps you have never heard the term 'Deadbeat Dad'?

Why do you assume that I support deadbeat parents? One of the reasons I advocate sexuality being expressed only in a marriage is because it is in the context of commitment that one raises and bears children.

I'm opposed to the deadbeat dad's as much as you are. I don't believe that people should abdicate responsibility.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Heterosexual couples avail of surrogacy too - have you not been reading the papers? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0125/1224329254189.html

Not the Irish Times recently. I don't read it on a regular basis.

Even if they do, it is an anomaly rather than the rule.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for your 'sympathy', with the greatest of respect Philo, you can shove your sympathy where the sun don't shine. There was no reason why my son and my nephew were placed on different legal footing other than myself, my partner and my son being denied rights which were available to my sister, her new husband and my nephew as soon as sister signed the Marriage Register.

My son was denied the benefits of two legally recognised parents only because his parents were of the same gender.

I genuinely mean it. I think that LGBT parents should be considered for adoption with the possibility of contact with biological parents if required.

There's no need for your comment about shoving it where the sun doesn't shine.

However I do think these issues do show that a heterosexual marriage is different from a homosexual union, and indeed it shows why the race argument is poor on this subject.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

I agree, we wouldn't be. We wouldn't be having a debate on abortion full stop if we didn't have the philosophy we do concerning sexuality.

We have always had abortions. We will always have abortions. Extremely rare in the LGBT community though and then only for pressing medical reasons.
People will always have sex outside marriage. That is a fact of life. Some married people will have sex outside their marriages. That is a fact of life.
We need to deal with the facts of life -

So if sex should take place only within in marriage - what happens if one is denied the right to marry one's partner? Life long celibacy?

I'm saying that there should be legal protection, and I think a lot of people in LGBT families would have huge concerns even if others don't.

Our concerns are that our children are being denied legal security granted to the children of heterosexual married couples because we are not allowed to marry. This problem is easily solved - let us get married.

Why do you assume that I support deadbeat parents? One of the reasons I advocate sexuality being expressed only in a marriage is because it is in the context of commitment that one raises and bears children.

I'm opposed to the deadbeat dad's as much as you are. I don't believe that people should abdicate responsibility.

When it comes to Deadbeat Dads Philo, I am 100% certain you and I are on the same page.

My point was that you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the differences between LBGT couples and Heterosexual couples to the detriment of the former.

LGBT people have children because they really want those children - that is not the case with heterosexuals. Some do really want them - but many are accidents. This is one of those facts of life.

You speak of 'sperm donors' but what really is the difference between a man who provides sperm in a test tube and a man who has a drunken shag? The method of delivery?

The live 'sperm donor' will have discussed and agreed the issues. He will know and agree that a child may be conceived. He will agree what level of involvement he will have with that child - and what level of responsibility.

The 'sperm donator' will have donated sperm to a 'bank' (possibly in return for money) knowing that sperm may be used to conceive a child. Now, how much desire to raise children is indicated by the act of masturbating into a little jar and maybe getting a few bucks in return?

The guy having a quickie doesn't care. He has given no thought to the repercussions of his act - he is also universally of the heterosexual persuasion. He may accept responsibility, he may run for the hills, he may be forced by the courts to accept some financial responsibility, he may never be seen again. He may pay for an abortion...

For the former - conception is the point of the exercise. He has entered into a mutually agreed arrangement in full knowledge.

For the guy in the middle - he knows conception is a real possibility but until recent changes in legislation he was unlikely to ever be called upon to participate in any resulting children's lives in any way.

For the latter - conception is an unintended, and often unwanted, side effect.


Lesbians are not the only users of sperm donors. Heterosexual women , married and unmarried, form the bulk of sperm bank customers.

Not the Irish Times recently. I don't read it on a regular basis.

Even if they do, it is an anomaly rather than the rule.

This is a test case. Expect more. The point is that heterosexual couple can and do avail of surrogacy.

I genuinely mean it. I think that LGBT parents should be considered for adoption with the possibility of contact with biological parents if required.

There's no need for your comment about shoving it where the sun doesn't shine.

However I do think these issues do show that a heterosexual marriage is different from a homosexual union, and indeed it shows why the race argument is poor on this subject.

LBGT prospective adoptive parents should be treated exactly the same as heterosexual adoptive parents. End of.

Do you advocate the same involvement by biological parents if the adoptive parents are straight?

At the moment LGBT couples cannot adopt as a couple - not even if they are in a Civil Partnership. What they can do is adopt as an individual. We want them to be able to adopt as a couple - the same as heterosexuals can. The same rules should apply regardless of the sexual orientation of the prospective parents.

But I wasn't talking about adoption. I was talking about when one member of an LGBT couple is the biological parent why can't their partner adopt in the same way as the spouse of a heterosexual can adopt? Same rules to apply.

The sun don't shine comment was a response to being offered 'sympathy'. We don't want 'sympathy' Philo - we want our children to be treated in exactly the same way as the children of heterosexuals. That is what is being denied to us and our children.


No - LGBT couples are not different to heterosexual ones except in the way that no two couples (straight or gay) are exactly the same. We want security, legal protection, recognition of our 'couplehood', to be treated equally. Those of us lucky enough to have jobs go to work, we pay rent/mortgages/PRSI/ taxes/Levies, we grocery shop, we fret about our children if we have them, we socialise, we watch TV, some of us pray...
We are just like everyone else except we happen to fall in love with people of the same gender. We are not more promiscuous despite what some would like to say - not since contraception 'freed' the straights and AIDS scared the Gays.

Most of us just want to settle down with our 'forever' partner and get on with our lives benefiting from the same rights as our heterosexual brothers and sisters. Sometimes it takes a while to find the 'right' person, sometimes we never find them at all, sometimes we find them first off - just like heterosexuals.

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

Not the Irish Times recently. I don't read it on a regular basis.

Even if they do, it is an anomaly rather than the rule.

So what if it's uncommon, or an anomaly? It still happens. It's just as much a "biological minefield" for them as for gay couples.

Btw, that case was covered by all of the major Irish news outlets, not just the IT. Discussions about issues in Irish society are going to refer to Irish media, so it couldn't hurt to keep an eye on Irish news sites.

philologos wrote: »

However I do think these issues do show that a heterosexual marriage is different from a homosexual union, and indeed it shows why the race argument is poor on this subject.

I'm assuming the issues you're referring to are those raised by the Guardian and IT articles, and not Bannasidhe's experiences.

Because they don't show any such thing. The only way it could show that is if marriage was exclusive to those who could have children through traditional means. But it's not. All these issues show is that couples who use surrogacy or sperm donation need to plan for and agree how the donor or surrogate will be involved with the child after birth.

And who mentioned race? The current discussion is family.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We have always had abortions. We will always have abortions. Extremely rare in the LGBT community though and then only for pressing medical reasons.
People will always have sex outside marriage. That is a fact of life. Some married people will have sex outside their marriages. That is a fact of life.
We need to deal with the facts of life -

Obviously. Because the definition of an LGBT relationship is between two of the same gender who can't possibly conceive. This is exactly why the reason why a heterosexual relationship differs from a homosexual one.

This is exactly the type of reason why I said in the first post in this thread that this thread should be about sexuality as a whole. The Christian point of view is not a point of view that says we dislike homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. It's that God created this universe with an intention and a purpose for those who are created by Him. There's a purpose for sexuality much as there is a purpose for how I work, or a purpose for how I befriend others. Essentially it is to bring all things under Christ.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So if sex should take place only within in marriage - what happens if one is denied the right to marry one's partner? Life long celibacy?

Much in the same respect - if I am never married, that is what I'm called to do as a heterosexual.

I don't believe anyone is denied to be married. The issue is over how marriage is defined.

From a Christian point of view, marriage is only heterosexual marriage.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Our concerns are that our children are being denied legal security granted to the children of heterosexual married couples because we are not allowed to marry. This problem is easily solved - let us get married.

Or grant those rights to civil partners.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When it comes to Deadbeat Dads Philo, I am 100% certain you and I are on the same page.

See the thing is, it's the Gospel that brings me on the same page. One can't address deadbeat dads without addressing philosophical issues with the liberal philosophy to sexuality that created that phenomenon.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point was that you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the differences between LBGT couples and Heterosexual couples to the detriment of the former.

It's not an assumption to say that there is a clear biological difference.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

LGBT people have children because they really want those children - that is not the case with heterosexuals. Some do really want them - but many are accidents. This is one of those facts of life.

As do most married heterosexuals. As I've said about I'd discourage sexual expression outside of a committed marriage because it is a risk.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You speak of 'sperm donors' but what really is the difference between a man who provides sperm in a test tube and a man who has a drunken shag? The method of delivery?

Plenty of difference I suspect. Many of those men are doing it because they believe that it is the right thing to assist people in having children and because they actually care. I think the law should allow them to see the children, I'm glad of the ruling last week.

Irrespective of family structure, biological parents still matter. They are key to our identity as people.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The live 'sperm donor' will have discussed and agreed the issues. He will know and agree that a child may be conceived. He will agree what level of involvement he will have with that child - and what level of responsibility.

Well in Britain the precedent precluded them from meeting irrespective until this case was brought last week.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The 'sperm donator' will have donated sperm to a 'bank' (possibly in return for money) knowing that sperm may be used to conceive a child. Now, how much desire to raise children is indicated by the act of masturbating into a little jar and maybe getting a few bucks in return?

See above. I think you're wrong on this.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The guy having a quickie doesn't care. He has given no thought to the repercussions of his act - he is also universally of the heterosexual persuasion. He may accept responsibility, he may run for the hills, he may be forced by the courts to accept some financial responsibility, he may never be seen again. He may pay for an abortion...

I don't believe that's true always as I've mentioned above. I'm sure many actually do care.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For the former - conception is the point of the exercise. He has entered into a mutually agreed arrangement in full knowledge.

Yes, but he should have the legal right to see his children. It's encouraging to see that the courts agree. Biological parents are important.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For the guy in the middle - he knows conception is a real possibility but until recent changes in legislation he was unlikely to ever be called upon to participate in any resulting children's lives in any way.

Yes, but that was wrong I think.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is a test case. Expect more. The point is that heterosexual couple can and do avail of surrogacy.

As the exception, not the rule.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you advocate the same involvement by biological parents if the adoptive parents are straight?

Yes. I think that right should be there.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

At the moment LGBT couples cannot adopt as a couple - not even if they are in a Civil Partnership. What they can do is adopt as an individual. We want them to be able to adopt as a couple - the same as heterosexuals can. The same rules should apply regardless of the sexual orientation of the prospective parents.

In Ireland, yes. In Britain no.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But I wasn't talking about adoption. I was talking about when one member of an LGBT couple is the biological parent why can't their partner adopt in the same way as the spouse of a heterosexual can adopt? Same rules to apply.

See above.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The sun don't shine comment was a response to being offered 'sympathy'. We don't want 'sympathy' Philo - we want our children to be treated in exactly the same way as the children of heterosexuals. That is what is being denied to us and our children.

It's still a rather harsh comment I think.

philologos

NuMarvel wrote: »

So what if it's uncommon, or an anomaly? It still happens. It's just as much a "biological minefield" for them as for gay couples.

Btw, that case was covered by all of the major Irish news outlets, not just the IT. Discussions about issues in Irish society are going to refer to Irish media, so it couldn't hurt to keep an eye on Irish news sites.

I rarely read Irish news sites, or papers. This is a broader topic than just in Irish society.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm assuming the issues you're referring to are those raised by the Guardian and IT articles, and not Bannasidhe's experiences.

Because they don't show any such thing. The only way it could show that is if marriage was exclusive to those who could have children through traditional means. But it's not. All these issues show is that couples who use surrogacy or sperm donation need to plan for and agree how the donor or surrogate will be involved with the child after birth.

And who mentioned race? The current discussion is family.

I think that the biological issues around childbearing for LGBT parents are what distinguish it as a relationship structure from heterosexual ones. In heterosexual cases they are the exception rather than the rule.

lazygal

How do those who follow scripture feel about ICSI, IVF and other fertility treatments used by heterosexual married couples? What about the use of the couple's own sperm and eggs implanted into a surrogate, are they still the biological parents for the sake of raising a family? What about heterosexual couples who marry knowing they don't want or cannot have children, should they avail of an alternative to marriage as children won't form part of their union? Adoption is often pushed as a 'solution' for unwanted pregnancy, should a man who's fathered his child by raping a woman be allowed to adopt that child should the mother want to give it up for adoption if he's married to someone else? What about the fact that in Irish law, and that of many other jurisdictions, the husband of a woman is seen to be the legal father of the children she bears during the marriage, regardless of whether he is in fact the biological father, is that right?

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

I think that the biological issues around childbearing for LGBT parents are what distinguish it as a relationship structure from heterosexual ones. In heterosexual cases they are the exception rather than the rule.

I've been asking you for over a week what you meant by differences in relationship structures. Looks like you're only managing to think of something now...

Anyways, childbearing issues occur for some heterosexual couples as well. So clearly they have a different relationship structure. Why aren't we denying them the right to marry?

lazygal

NuMarvel wrote: »

I've been asking you for over a week what you meant by differences in relationship structures. Looks like you're only managing to think of something now...

Anyways, childbearing issues occur for some heterosexual couples as well. So clearly they have a different relationship structure. Why aren't we denying them the right to marry?

No one asked me or my husband if we were planning on having children during the marriage process. No one asked if we couldn't have children. We wanted them, and have one, but should we have had a civil partnership instead of a marriage if children weren't on the cards?

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Obviously. Because the definition of an LGBT relationship is between two of the same gender who can't possibly conceive. This is exactly why the reason why a heterosexual relationship differs from a homosexual one.

This is exactly the type of reason why I said in the first post in this thread that this thread should be about sexuality as a whole. The Christian point of view is not a point of view that says we dislike homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. It's that God created this universe with an intention and a purpose for those who are created by Him. There's a purpose for sexuality much as there is a purpose for how I work, or a purpose for how I befriend others. Essentially it is to bring all things under Christ.

This thread is already a quagmire without expanding it's remit.

As for your religious philosophy, I applaud you if you live by it. But fail to see why I should be compelled to...

I do not share your religious beliefs so why should they impact on sexual life?

Much in the same respect - if I am never married, that is what I'm called to do as a heterosexual.

That is your choice but again why should that be imposed on people who do not share your religious philosophy?

I don't believe anyone is denied to be married. The issue is over how marriage is defined.

Yes, we are being denied the right to marry...

From a Christian point of view, marriage is only heterosexual marriage.

Then let those Christian who believe that abide by that (not all Christians agree - remember...:p}

Or grant those rights to civil partners.

That is what we are arguing for! The exact same rights. Jeeze Phil, have you been paying attention?
It's just you object to the use of the word 'marriage' - I am not tied to it but think it would be a pointless exercise and waste of money to have two pieces of legislation that essentially are the same but have different name. The only people who will benefit are lawyers...

See the thing is, it's the Gospel that brings me on the same page. One can't address deadbeat dads without addressing philosophical issues with the liberal philosophy to sexuality that created that phenomenon.

Phil, you are an idealist. An admirable quality (even if I disagree with your 'ideal') but we need to deal with what is.

It's not an assumption to say that there is a clear biological difference.

Expand please.

What issues do LGBT couples face that are unique to them?

Heterosexual couples use sperm donors, surrogacy etc etc

As do most married heterosexuals.

What about unmarried ones?
And no - not all married one either...

Plenty of difference I suspect. Many of those men are doing it because they believe that it is the right thing to assist people in having children and because they actually care. I think the law should allow them to see the children, I'm glad of the ruling last week.

You are assuming this was not already the norm. As I said, the donor and the prospective parents usually agree terms and conditions prior to donation.

Irrespective of family structure, biological parents still matter. They are key to our identity as people.

What about LBGT biological parents? We do exist.

Well in Britain the precedent precluded them from meeting irrespective until this case was brought last week.

No they were not precluded - they just didn't have an automatic right. I believe I mention my son and his 'father' met....

See above. I think you're wrong on this.

Phil - how many LGBT parents do you actually know? I know several hundred and am one myself. I do have personal experience, know parents and donors and as a community worker was called upon to give legal advice in this area.
I know what I am talking about.

I don't believe that's true always as I've mentioned above. I'm sure many actually do care.

Idealism again Phil.

Yes, but he should have the legal right to see his children. It's encouraging to see that the courts agree. Biological parents are important.

What if he doesn't want to?
Should a rapist have the right to see 'his' child - what with him being a biological parent?

Some biological parents shouldn't be allowed to mind a plant - never mind raise a child...

Yes, but that was wrong I think.

Why?

As the exception, not the rule.

An assumption based on no evidence.

Family is our inspiration. With more than 17 years of experience and well over 500 births, Circle Surrogacy is one of the oldest and largest surrogate agencies serving gay and heterosexual parents all over the world.

http://www.circlesurrogacy.com/

Yes. I think that right should be there.

By putting a child up for adoption the biological parent(s) officially abdicate all rights and responsibilities, legally freeing the child to become a full member of another family equal under the law to biological children. There is a reason it is like this...

Do you really believe abusive biological parents should have access to their children? That they have the right just because they were able to breed? :eek:

In Ireland, yes. In Britain no.



See above.

I live in Ireland. This is an Irish site based in Ireland. The situation in the UK does is not relevant to discussing the situation in Ireland which is what I am doing.

It's still a rather harsh comment I think.

Not as harsh as seeing your son being denied legal protection and security because of other people's religious beliefs.



This quoting/replying to each paragraph is a royal pain.

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you elaborate on this quip? Things have been relatively civil recently, and such quips have a tendency to make a discussion go south fairly quick.

I would be happy to. When you say things like

"I'm absolutely of the opinion, that God should be sought as the objective source for Justice etc in the state."

you are presumably talking about the God that you personally believe in. What makes your statement problematic is there are people who personally believe in a different God, or gods, or they might believe in no God or gods. It would not be fair to make these people adhere to conduct demanded by your beliefs about God, just as it would be unfair to make you adhere to conduct demanded by their beliefs. Indeed, history has shown that when people force others to adhere to their beliefs about God, gods, or no God, it usually brings great misery.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't accept you at your word. Like I said I respond to action, not words. You have had these points consistently put to you and in the following posts which you must have read since you quote from them you have responded to straw man versions of them or simply completely ignored them, continuing to repeat the your point that was just debunked. You have gone so far to simply throw out snide comments about how you don't think they are debunked, so the idea you have missed them innocently again rings very hollow.

If because of this you want to throw your toys out of the pram and continue to ignore the points being put to you, well lets just say I'm not surprised.

I don't mind that you think its toys out of the pram, or anything else for that matter. IMO, accusing me of purposely being dishonest in order to what? try win an argument? Is the end of the story. It goes beyond the bit of 'Ah come on now' kind of stuff into something more serious. If you think I behave in the manner you say I do, then that ends that. I'm not insulted, I'm not annoyed, I'm just ending this particular conversation, as it is truly a waste of at least my time. Maybe its foolishness on my part, but I did actually think that there was a certain level of respect between us.

Genuinely, I respect the time you take on many of your posts, and the fact that although I vehemently disagree with many of them, you are one of the more thought provoking posters on occasion from 'THE OTHER SIDE':) If I thought you were a liar (and not just simply wrong most of the time :pac: ), then I would have given up on civil debate with you a long time ago. The fact that you believe that of me, well, there is nothing I can do. Farewell old frienemy *wipes tear from eye*

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

I would be happy to. When you say things like



you are presumably talking about the God that you personally believe in. What makes your statement problematic is there are people who personally believe in a different God, or gods, or they might believe in no God or gods. It would not be fair to make these people adhere to conduct demanded by your beliefs about God, just as it would be unfair to make you adhere to conduct demanded by their beliefs. Indeed, history has shown that when people force others to adhere to their beliefs about God, gods, or no God, it usually brings great misery.

Thanks for the elaboration. I am talking about the God that this, and many nations refer to, and pay homage to. So other gods have nothing to do with anything. Its not just a matter of, 'Hey this guy wants us to pay attention to some yoke he believes in'. The very state we live in recognises God without ambiguity, so it is certainly not unreasonable that I appeal to this God that the state see's as The Living God. In fact, it is wholly unreasonable and quite stupid, if the state recognises God, but chooses to then ignore him. It would, when you think about it, be wholly irresponsible.

Second of all, I'm not looking for a theocracy or some kind of Holy Roman Empire situation. Merely, that in terms of justice and morality etc, the state looks to the being it recognises in alleged high asteem. This would indeed mean that in terms of abortion, marriage etc, that yes, Gods standards are consulted for the better of society. IT WOULD NOT MEAN, however, that anyone is forced to believe anything but that yes, they would live in a state shaped by references to God. I would be against a totalitarian approach, be it 'Christian' or atheist. Separation of CHURCH and state sounds great to me. The state however, casting God to the thrash heap, sounds like the beginning of the end of the state.

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

Thanks for the elaboration. I am talking about the God that this, and many nations refer to, and pay homage to. So other gods have nothing to do with anything. Its not just a matter of, 'Hey this guy wants us to pay attention to some yoke he believes in'. The very state we live in recognises God without ambiguity, so it is certainly not unreasonable that I appeal to this God that the state see's as The Living God. In fact, it is wholly unreasonable and quite stupid, if the state recognises God, but chooses to then ignore him. It would, when you think about it, be wholly irresponsible.

Second of all, I'm not looking for a theocracy or some kind of Holy Roman Empire situation. Merely, that in terms of justice and morality etc, the state looks to the being it recognises in alleged high asteem. This would indeed mean that in terms of abortion, marriage etc, that yes, Gods standards are consulted for the better of society. IT WOULD NOT MEAN, however, that anyone is forced to believe anything but that yes, they would live in a state shaped by references to God. I would be against a totalitarian approach, be it 'Christian' or atheist. Separation of CHURCH and state sounds great to me. The state however, casting God to the thrash heap, sounds like the beginning of the end of the state.

The trouble is the above does not address the problem I highlighted. What you have simply said is "Well, my religion is the majority, and our state mentions my God so that makes it ok for me to insist that people adhere to some of my religious beliefs". Your stance is also a very contingent one. It would justify the persecution of women and Christians in Islamic states, or of Christians in China, for example. Indeed, it is frequently used to do so.

philologos

Bannasidhe: It's getting a bit difficult flipping between the topics of what is the Christian view on sexuality and legislation. I was arguing the former, and your last post has switched to the latter. This is getting a bit tedious. We need to make up our minds on it. If it is the former, then I'm happy to engage with your questions a bit more. If it is the latter, I've been rather clear on my position on the law already.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Bannasidhe: It's getting a bit difficult flipping between the topics of what is the Christian view on sexuality and legislation. I was arguing the former, and your last post has switched to the latter. This is getting a bit tedious. We need to make up our minds on it. If it is the former, then I'm happy to engage with your questions a bit more. If it is the latter, I've been rather clear on my position on the law already.

They are intertwined. I wish they were not, but I am not the one who muddled them up. That was accomplished by anti-Gay marriage campaigners who are actively lobbying governments using this so-called Christian view as justification.

You yourself have put forward arguments which can be summarised as

'My Holy Book is against this. I believe what it says in my Holy Book therefore I am against this. If you let this happen it will infringe on my freedom of religion which is more important to me than other people's civil liberties.'

I have no problem with people practicing their religion. I object when they seek to influence the State into making everyone practice along with them by insisting civil laws take religious beliefs into consideration when enacting legislation aimed at everyone.

You see, I don't care what the Bible says. I really, really don't. I consider it an interesting document - not a guide to life. You absolutely disagree. That is grand. We can agree to disagree.
Problems occur when the Bible (or any other 'holy' book) is being touted as not only a good reason but divine justification for citizens being treated unequally by the Civil State.

digger58

dlofnep wrote: »

Grand - Let's kick it off so.



Homosexuality is perfectly natural, and poses no dangers to society.

Is it? funny I was born and reared on a farm and would disagree, we never called the AI man to a BULL, we didn't milk BULLS, in case you aren't aware, 2 males or 2 females can't reproduce naturally ( since you speak of nature) Tell the hetro section of society that contracted AIDS due to deviant behavior that it's natural and poses no danger!. I don't have a problem with homosexuality per se, so long as it's within the same like minded community and not imposed on anybody, BUT don't try and tell us its natural and safe.