Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

124678

Comments

  • #152
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Civil Partnership denies parents the right to make educational and medical decisions for their children; it denies them the right to visit their children in hospital; it denies them custody and visitation should the adult relationship break down.
    It denies children of gay parents the right to maintenance, hospital visits and inheritance from their parents; in the tragic event of a biological parent dying, a child could end up in State care as his second mum or dad is seen as a legal stranger; as adults it can deny them the right to make vital medical decisions for elderly or infirm parents.
    The reasons these parts are ommitted from the CP bill is simply because Gay couples are not supposed to take care of children.
    To include these measures would require a referendum as the state pledges to protect the nuclear family.
    jaffa20 wrote: »
    In practical terms, the Civil Partnership proposal contains no details on the tax and social welfare benefits to be granted to gay and lesbian couples.
    These will be dealt with in separate pieces of law. We have no way of knowing if these will be the same as, or different from those granted to straight couples. Will gay couples have to pay more tax? Will they be included in Social Welfare benefits like pension transfer? Considering the fact that the Social Welfare code has already been amended once (in 2005) to explicitly exclude gay couples from benefits granted to straight married and unmarried couples, there is little reason to hope the Government will treat gay couples equally if and when the partnership scheme becomes law.
    I can't comment on what laws may or may not be passed in the future.
    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Really, it still seems like an agreement to keep 2nd class people happy. Also, in the case of children already fostered or cohabitating with gay couples, it offers them no rights if one of the partners in the couple dies. The child will be snatched from them because of the traditionalist view of family in ireland.
    Again Gay couples ae not supposed to adopt under this law.


  • #153
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    But in the context that you said it, there was no precedent for it. The only conclusion I can draw is that you believe that by ignoring homosexuality, it will go away.
    Well then that is a wrong conclusion.


  • #154
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Not sure how that bolsters your argument, tbh. :confused:
    What arguement ? I said there was no certain evidence.


  • #155
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    What's wrong with redefining marriage for an Ireland of 2009?

    I personally only reach issues when it comes to adoptive rights. That's my stumbling block. I have no issue with formalising homosexual relationships. I don't even have an issue with the blessing of civil partnerships if it is under the terms of the church.

    I feel that it is the right of the child to have both a mother and a father. I've even suggested on another thread in the LGBT forum, that if someone of another gender was able to be a third parent if you will of a the child to make sure that one was raised with a solid influence of both genders in their life I would be willing to find a compromise on the parenting front.

    I don't feel marriage in 2009 is all that necessary of changing if we can find a resolution as to why civil partnerships are inadequate and deal with that head on.


  • #156
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Well then he should have said it that way, though even the above remark is still controversial.
    How is it controversial? Can you definitively say that ALL straight parents (including the hookers and the junkies) are more effective parents than ALL gay parents?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I personally only reach issues when it comes to adoptive rights. That's my stumbling block. I have no issue with formalising homosexual relationships. I don't even have an issue with the blessing of civil partnerships if it is under the terms of the church.

    I feel that it is the right of the child to have both a mother and a father. I've even suggested on another thread in the LGBT forum, that if someone of another gender was able to be a third parent if you will of a the child to make sure that one was raised with a solid influence of both genders in their life I would be willing to find a compromise on the parenting front.

    I don't feel marriage in 2009 is all that necessary of changing if we can find a resolution as to why civil partnerships are inadequate and deal with that head on.

    Then why not 2 mothers or 2 fathers, one taking a more maternal role and one taking a more paternal role.


  • #158
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Well then that is a wrong conclusion.
    And yet you still haven't given a reason as to why you brought it up.


  • #159
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    How is it controversial? Can you definitively say that ALL straight parents (including the hookers and the junkies) are more effective parents than ALL gay parents?
    There are hookers and junkies on both sides. But no I wouldn't and as such those children should be put in foster homes.


  • #160
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The reasons these parts are ommitted from the CP bill is simply because Gay couples are not supposed to take care of children.
    To include these measures would require a referendum as the state pledges to protect the nuclear family.


    Yes but what is ommited is the protection of the children which already are being raised by gay couples. I know a lesbian mother who coahibates with her partner. The child sees them as their parents. If the mother was to die, the other partner would not be allowed to become legal guardian of the child, irrespective of the biological mother's or child's wishes.

    Nail -> Haid

    @Jackass; i'm not talking about redefining marriage. You can keep your definition of marriage under the churches eyes. I'm talking about how children and their parents, foster or biological parents, will be protected because i can foster a child tomorrow and never have them exposed to a maternal intinct at home and yet i can't adopt a child with my partner because of a traditionalist view of marriage and family. Doesn't make much sense really, does it :confused:


  • #161
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    There are hookers and junkies on both sides. But no I wouldn't and as such those children should be put in foster homes.

    Where they can of course legally be fostered jointly by two loving people in gay relationship!


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    And yet you still haven't given a reason as to why you brought it up.
    I didn't bring up anything. You saw to separate points, put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5. How can I comment on that ?


  • #163
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    anoisaris wrote: »
    Where they can of course legally be fostered jointly by two loving people in gay relationship?
    That is the law, I'm not saying I agree with it.


  • #164
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »


    I can't comment on what laws may or may not be passed in the future.

    Then don't comment on how we have no more rights to anything more than what is under the Civil Partnerships bill please.


  • #165
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What arguement ? I said there was no certain evidence.

    You said
    ...there is still no certain evidence that homosexuality is "nature" rather than "nurture".

    What you didn't say was evidence points to mostly nature with some nurture - which is what the link suggests. :confused::confused:


  • #166
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    anoisaris wrote: »
    Then why not 2 mothers or 2 fathers, one taking a more maternal role and one taking a more paternal role.

    A woman cannot effectively replace a father, a man cannot effectively replace a mother. Gender influence is important.

    I've laid out my compromise, that's really as far as I can go given my viewpoint on the family, and how I value it.


  • #167
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Then don't comment on how we have no more rights to anything more than what is under the Civil Partnerships bill please.
    ah ah, someone seems to have mistaken "legislation" with "ideology".
    I'll make it simple, Legislation is what will happen in the future,
    Ideology is what should happen in the future.


  • #168
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Another point I'd like to bring up is this: Assuming for a moment that having two gay parents does increase the chances of the child being gay- so what? Unless one is working under the assumption that gay is a bad thing to be, this shouldn't be relevant.

    I don't think anyone would claim this would bring about a population collapse; clearly gays do want kids, and there is no shortage of them or of means to get them.


  • #169
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    You said



    What you didn't say was evidence points to mostly nature with some nurture - which is what the link suggests.
    And yet there is no certain evidence.


  • #170
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Jakkass wrote: »
    A woman cannot effectively replace a father, a man cannot effectively replace a mother. Gender influence is important.

    I've laid out my compromise, that's really as far as I can go given my viewpoint on the family, and how I value it.

    That's just your opinion. A lot of gay people do not conform to typical gender roles for their sex. Is it not possible that a man with maternal instincts could be a great mother type as could a woman with paternal instincts be a great in a father type role? What exact behaviours/influences etc are you speaking of in terms of gender influence?


  • #171
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    And yet there is no certain evidence.

    What point are you making please? And why?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Another point I'd like to bring up is this: Assuming for a moment that having two gay parents does increase the chances of the child being gay- so what? Unless one is working under the assumption that gay is a bad thing to be, this shouldn't be relevant.

    Who argued this? I don't think that is the motivation for my end of the argument at all.


  • #173
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    What point are you making please? And why?
    The point I'm making is that there is no certain evidence that Homosexuality is caused by genes or is conditioned due to the childs environment.
    And tbh I don't know why you keep bringing this up again.


  • #174
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Im pro full rights for same sex realtionships/Unions whatever, but it think fighting for religious marriage(say a same sex couple want a christian ceremony) is silly. Its whatevers religions club. Theyve discriminated because of their beliefs for whatever reason for years, why force them into anything else?
    I know you disagree with their beliefs(so do i) but why force them to act whatever way? we can critisize them, but why bother fighting them to ,for example, stop believing witches are going to hell or are handmaidens of satan or some other thing? We can educate and inform, but we cant force.
    Its like making the Noc Forum regulars all go to a sunbed facility.

    If same sex unions want marriage, or a blessing on their union or something, there are plenty of spiritual practicioners that could do this for them.

    Now....
    Jakkass wrote: »
    A woman cannot effectively replace a father, a man cannot effectively replace a mother. Gender influence is important.

    In all fairness to you Jakkass (i usually ask everyone that says this) what say you to me? Im better of without having a father. I wont go into specifics other than hes a tool of epic proportions.
    I was raised by my mum, and im better for it.
    Was it just a generalisation in this gender/sexuality specific discusssion, or does that belief go for all single parents too?


  • #175
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The point I'm making is that there is no certain evidence that Homosexuality is caused by genes or is conditioned due to the childs environment.
    And tbh I don't know why you keep bringing this up again.

    Sorry, who suggested otherwise? Maybe I'm just a bit stupid but I'm still trying to work out why you brought it into the discussion and what your point is - spell it out to me.

    For a second there I thought you were suggesting homosexuality could be an entirely environmentally learned behaviour, despite that conclusion being at odds with the link you provided, and as such shouldn't be discussed in schools but I could have it all wrong.


  • #176
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Nerin, I think most (but not all) gay people would want a civil ceremony rather than religious.


  • #177
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nerin wrote: »
    In all fairness to you Jakkass (i usually ask everyone that says this) what say you to me? Im better of without having a father. I wont go into specifics other than hes a tool of epic proportions.
    I was raised by my mum, and im better for it.
    Was it just a generalisation in this gender/sexuality specific discusssion, or does that belief go for all single parents too?

    I say that in general the case is that families with a mother and a father is the best scenario for a child to be raised in. Of course there are cases when the parents are negligent. The same would be true of same sex relationships, or single parent relationships. It isn't an argument against the traditional family.

    So yes, I consider a family with a mother and a father to be better in general than situations where there is only one parent. There is research to back this up too.


  • #178
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    anoisaris wrote: »
    Nerin, I think most (but not all) gay people would want a civil ceremony rather than religious.
    I know but i have heard stories of gay people throwing right strops at religions that wont give them marriage.

    I mean come on, the Pope isnt going to turn around and say "hey, we think ye'll burn in hell for doing the do, but sure we'll marry ye for the craic".:D

    Im only talking about those same sex couples who i think are a little crazy being annoyed at that.

    I already said i fully support same sex unions being equal to other unions. And also, if memory serves me well, Jakkass has the same view. :)


  • #179
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Sorry, who suggested otherwise? Maybe I'm just a bit stupid but I'm still trying to work out why you brought it into the discussion and what your point is - spell it out to me.

    For a second there I thought you were suggesting homosexuality could be an entirely environmentally learned behaviour, despite that conclusion being at odds with the link you provided, and as such shouldn't be discussed in schools but I could have it all wrong.
    I brought it up in response to this post:
    Originally Posted by anoisaris viewpost.gif
    And I have already said before many gay people know they are gay when they are children. Why shouldn't a child know that relationships and family units are not all solely based on opposite sex couples? Wouldn't that education reduce the risk that a child of gay parents would be bullied as some of you seem concerned with that point?

    Anoisaris claims that many gay people knew they where gay when they where children. I am reminding anoisaris that there is no evidence that children can be gay.


  • #180
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I say that in general the case is that families with a mother and a father is the best scenario for a child to be raised in. Of course there are cases when the parents are negligent. The same would be true of same sex relationships, or single parent relationships. It isn't an argument against the traditional family.

    So yes, I consider a family with a mother and a father to be better in general than situations where there is only one parent. There is research to back this up too.
    I love being a spike in "research stats" ;)

    cheers for clearing that up.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Nerin wrote: »
    I know but i have heard stories of gay people throwing right strops at religions that wont give them marriage.

    I mean come on, the Pope isnt going to turn around and say "hey, we think ye'll burn in hell for doing the do, but sure we'll marry ye for the craic".:D

    Im only talking about those same sex couples who i think are a little crazy being annoyed at that.

    I already said i fully support same sex unions being equal to other unions. And also, if memory serves me well, Jakkass has the same view. :)

    Can't say I have heard of many wanting a religious ceremony I would have assumed anyone using the term marriage referring to civil marriage but then you never know I suppose. I doubt Jackass agrees with your view as a union equal to marriage would include adoption.


  • #182
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't feel marriage in 2009 is all that necessary of changing if we can find a resolution as to why civil partnerships are inadequate and deal with that head on.

    Civil partnerships are inadequate because they are not marriage - steadfastly trying not to change marriage while holding civil partnerships as a lesser alternative to a certain group in society based entirely on their sexuality, is why they are inadequate. You kind of spelt it out yourself. I don't see why gay peoples wishes to change the definition to include them is any less valid than trying to prevent changes to current marriage legislation because it suits your personal definition better.


  • #183
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I brought it up in response to this post:
    Originally Posted by anoisaris viewpost.gif
    And I have already said before many gay people know they are gay when they are children. Why shouldn't a child know that relationships and family units are not all solely based on opposite sex couples? Wouldn't that education reduce the risk that a child of gay parents would be bullied as some of you seem concerned with that point?

    Anoisaris claims that many gay people knew they where gay when they where children. I am reminding anoisaris that there is no evidence that children can be gay.

    actually while I was speaking from experience there is also evidence. If you go look for journals you will find evidence that a child can be homosexual. There is just no certain evidence if either one of genetic, environmental or other factors or combinations of several contribute.


  • #184
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I brought it up in response to this post:
    Originally Posted by anoisaris viewpost.gif
    And I have already said before many gay people know they are gay when they are children. Why shouldn't a child know that relationships and family units are not all solely based on opposite sex couples? Wouldn't that education reduce the risk that a child of gay parents would be bullied as some of you seem concerned with that point?

    Anoisaris claims that many gay people knew they where gay when they where children. I am reminding anoisaris that there is no evidence that children can be gay.

    But your very own quote suggests it is primarily genetic which means that although we have no definitive answer on nature Vs nurture, current understanding means Anoisaris has a very good case. If gay people say they have been gay since childhood, I would take that as reasonable argument that children can indeed be gay - unless you are suggesting these people are lying? :confused:


  • #185
    Nerin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    anoisaris wrote: »
    Can't say I have heard of many wanting a religious ceremony I would have assumed anyone using the term marriage referring to civil marriage but then you never know I suppose. I doubt Jackass agrees with your view as a union equal to marriage would include adoption.
    He agrees on enough things for me to not pounce on him :p

    I am pro adoption.
    I acknowledge that the kids may get teased or bullied, but thats hardly a reason to stop adoption. The kid could be over weight, or "weird" and be from a "traditional" family.

    its my opinion that the more we make it a big deal and fight about it, the bigger an issue it becomes on its own. People shouldnt think same sex couples are weird. They should make efforts to get out of their little corner and hang out with same sex couples, stop being afraid or suspicious.

    I was looking at the Air France thread this morning, Men are more likely to be paedophiles so kids arent allowed sit near them un accompanied now. This is just as blown out of proportion as the "kids with gay parents are gonna be messed up" arguements.


  • #186
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Civil partnerships are inadequate because they are not marriage - steadfastly trying not to change marriage while holding civil partnerships as a lesser alternative to a certain group in society based entirely on their sexuality, is why they are inadequate. You kind of spelt it out yourself. I don't see why gay peoples wishes to change the definition to include them is any less valid than trying to prevent changes to current marriage legislation because it suits your personal definition better.

    I don't see why it is necessary if we are to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and civil unions as between two of the same gender. Both relationship structures are accommodated.

    Future changes in the law won't require a referendum in any shape or form. It seems a much cleaner way of dealing with it. Whether or not the rights in the current legislation are adequate are up for discussion between the State and lobbyists on both sides of the debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see why it is necessary if we are to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and civil unions as between two of the same gender. Both relationship structures are accommodated.

    Because civil unions are inferior to marriage. It then follows that anyone in a civil union is legally inferior to a married couple. This might be okay for some- I'd go for that myself over marriage, but to put gays in the inferior bracket is making them second-class citizens. I see little difference between this and racial segregation.


  • #188
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    But your very own quote suggests it is primarily genetic which means that although we have no definitive answer on nature Vs nurture, current understanding means Anoisaris has a very good case. If gay people say they have been gay since childhood, I would take that as reasonable argument that children can indeed be gay - unless you are suggesting these people are lying? :confused:
    I am suggesting that there is no certain evidence, although current reasearch may be pointing in one direction our understanding of homosexuality is not complete. Therefore your arguement that people can be gay since childhood is invalid.


  • #189
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I am suggesting that there is no certain evidence, although current reasearch may be pointing in one direction our understanding of homosexuality is not complete. Therefore your arguement that people can be gay since childhood is invalid.

    No the argument that a person can be gay from childhood is a valid one. As is the argument that a person can be gay from birth, can be gay due to genetic factors or can be gay from environmental factors or can be gay due to a combination.

    It would be invalid to argue all gay people are gay for one reason. (Until we can prove that is the case)


  • #190
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    What?

    As it has not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, all evidence to date is invalid? If our most eminent scholars in the subject say all current evidence points towards primarily genetic input then I don't think that can be discounted - neither can personal testament btw. Are you waiting for the gay gene to be discovered or something??


  • #191
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see why it is necessary if we are to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and civil unions as between two of the same gender.

    Why should we do that though? Why should we lock out a particular group of consenting adults from something that the rest of the adult population is free to partake in. To segregate the two is grossly unfair - either adults can get married or they can't, there shouldn't be caveats imposed by some according to race, or sexuality, or anything else for that matter.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I am suggesting that there is no certain evidence, although current reasearch may be pointing in one direction our understanding of homosexuality is not complete. Therefore your arguement that people can be gay since childhood is invalid.

    "Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established
    during early childhood"

    (AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS. CLINICAL REPORT. Guidance for the Clinician in Rendering Pediatric Care. Barbara L. Frankowski, MD, MPH; and the Committee on Adolescence Sexual Orientation and Adolescents)

    1. Ryan C, Futterman D. Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling. New
    York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1998
    2. Perrin EC.     Sexual Orientation in Child and Adolescent Health Care. New
    York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2002
    3. Sell RL, Becker JB. Sexual orientation data collection and progress
    toward Healthy People 2010.     Am J Public Health. 2001;91:876–882
    4. Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality.     N Engl J Med. 1994;331:
    923    –930
    5. Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. Adolescent homosexuality.     Adv
    Pediatr. 1998;45:107–144


  • #193
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    What?

    As it has not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, all evidence to date is invalid? If our most eminent scholars in the subject say all current evidence points towards primarily genetic input then I don't think that can be discounted - neither can personal testament btw. Are you waiting for the gay gene to be discovered or something??
    You understood wrong, I said that since homosexuality has not been confirmed. Then anoisaris's arguement about children being aware of their sexuality is invalid.


  • #194
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I am suggesting that there is no certain evidence, although current reasearch may be pointing in one direction our understanding of homosexuality is not complete. Therefore your arguement that people can be gay since childhood is invalid.


    There is no argument; you're either gay from before birth or you're not gay (B and T's omitted for the sake of simplicity). Homosexuality is hardwired into your brain almost from conception. This is scientific fact, and that is not a term I use lightly.


  • #195
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    anoisaris wrote: »
    "Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established
    What does this prove only that evidence exists on both sides of the arguement, which I was already aware of. :confused:


  • #196
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    What do you mean homosexuality hasn't been confirmed?


  • #197
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You understood wrong, I said that since homosexuality has not been confirmed. Then anoisaris's arguement about children being aware of their sexuality is invalid.

    Are you now doubting the existence of homosexuality?


  • #198
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    There is no argument; you're either gay from before birth or you're not gay (B and T's omitted for the sake of simplicity). Homosexuality is hardwired into your brain almost from conception. This is scientific fact, and that is not a term I use lightly.
    There is conflicting evidence on both sides, one cannot say a child is gay from birth fact as this "fact" is still disputed.


  • #199
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What does this prove only that evidence exists on both sides of the arguement, which I was already aware of. :confused:

    It is evidence (other than my personal experience) for my point that a child can identify as gay which you claim they can't. There is no evidence for another side of the argument-are you confusing "from birth" with "a child" they are different things afterall?

    "As a child, as far back as I remember and primary school" does not equal "from birth"!


  • #200
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    anoisaris wrote: »
    Are you now doubting the existence of homosexuality?
    How in the name of God did you come to that conclusion ?
    Am I being Trolled ? :confused:


  • #201
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    anoisaris wrote: »
    It is evidence (other than my personal experience) for my point that a child can identify as gay which you claim they can't. There is no evidence for another side of the argument-are you confusing "from birth" with "a child" they are different things afterall?
    There is evidence for both the "nature" and "nurture" side of the arguement on the cause of homosexuality. You have mearly posted evidence for the "nature" side, evidence that I was aware of existing.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement