Gay couple kicked out of bar for kissing on the dancefloor

jive · 24-08-2011 07:34PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Haha.

Oh wow you've totally missed the point mate.

Strong input darling

Killer Pigeon · 24-08-2011 07:34PM

end a eknny wrote: »

so people who are offended by gays kissing should basically go **** themselves.

Yes, because it's none of their business. The same thing applies to a gay person who is offended by straight people kissing. Live and let live.

end a eknny wrote: »

what about gays having sex sure its natural why should have a problem with 2 gays having sex in the open.

What the hell man? What age are you, 12? We were not talking about people having public sex (whether straight or gay) is a different issue entirely.

end a eknny wrote: »

should they hide or be shot because they want to have sex. its disgusting that 2 consenting adults cant have sex on the street without some religous freaks or do gooders trying to stop them

Stop avoiding the issue and grow up.

TylerIE · 24-08-2011 07:39PM

jive wrote: »

I stand corrected and excuse my ignorance. What's the difference between a civil marriage and a civil partnership? (curious)

Among the differences are:

From Marriage Equality
Civil Partnership:

does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.
does not recognize same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold.
defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted

and of course the fact that its called "Civil Partnership" and has been created to be even called something different to Marriage.

Until I see some statistics backing up gay people being beaten and killed just for being gay then I'm not going to comment on it because I don't know enough about it. Anyone could be beaten and killed, not just because they are gay. Not being allowed to kiss in public isn't really a fear. Gay people are allowed to kiss in public. They might be hassled by scumbags for it, but that's the way it is and it's not going to change in our life time. I don't understand why gay people are legally second class citizens. Explain please

We dont have statistics from Ireland, and Im not in a position to get the US ones. Suffice to say that it does happen, even once is too much. And therefore all discrimination is unacceptable. Anybody could be beaten or killed but a gay male, especially one in the process of coming out or not yet out, may have the real fear of being at higher risk. Iv said before about a taxi driver telling me how he "used to go into town on a Saturday to get the q***rs".... You say they are allowed kiss in Public, others on this thread feel they arent. Because some people will harrass, some gay people are afraid to for fear of this harrassment.

Gay people are currently given the second class legal treatment in that they are not allowed the same rights and responsibilities when it comes to the person they love.

The part you bolded is something that some people on this forum supported. It had seemed that you were one of those who supported it but I stand corrected if you feel that a pub should not be allowed kick out a gay couple for kissing. [assuming a hypothetical scenario]

Monty. · 24-08-2011 07:40PM

Will it become a gay bar now ?

jive · 24-08-2011 07:49PM

lst wrote: »

A
We dont have statistics from Ireland, and Im not in a position to get the US ones. Suffice to say that it does happen, even once is too much. And therefore all discrimination is unacceptable. Anybody could be beaten or killed but a gay male, especially one in the process of coming out or not yet out, may have the real fear of being at higher risk. Iv said before about a taxi driver telling me how he "used to go into town on a Saturday to get the q***rs".... You say they are allowed kiss in Public, others on this thread feel they arent. Because some people will harrass, some gay people are afraid to for fear of this harrassment.

Gay people are currently given the second class legal treatment in that they are not allowed the same rights and responsibilities when it comes to the person they love.

The part you bolded is something that some people on this forum supported. It had seemed that you were one of those who supported it but I stand corrected if you feel that a pub should not be allowed kick out a gay couple for kissing. [assuming a hypothetical scenario]

Beatings happens for all kinds of reasons. Any 'beating' is unacceptable not sure why a gay beating is being given priority for concern. Gay people are at higher risk because they are not 'normal' in the eyes of many. Given that religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong then there's not much you can do about it because religion is so ingrained in society. You can minimise the problem but it will continue to exist.

Most of the differences that I can see from my limited knowledge of civil partnerships is with regards to children. Personally, I don't think gay people should be allowed to rear children due to the way society is currently. In the future yes but it is, in my opinion, in the best interest of the child to grow up with straight parents the way things are currently. This has nothing to do with gay people not being fit to be parents which many of them obviously are. This is a completely different discussion though and while I would support change I won't support gay parents having children with the way things currently are.

It shouldn't be allowed to kick anyone out solely for kissing, gay or otherwise, unless it poses some kind of hazard or interference. I don't see the big deal and I don't see why other people would care, but obviously some do but they are becoming more and more scarce.

Killer Pigeon · 24-08-2011 07:54PM

jive wrote: »

Hold on. So gay people want to get married in a church that condemns homosexuality? Yes, that makes perfect sense. Of course they can't get phucking married, it's a religious ceremony. They get the same thing as marriage without the religious affiliation. Do you actually expect the church in this country to allow gay people to marry? I'm not saying I agree with it, or that I respect the church at all, but the teachings (albeit there are plenty of other ridiculous ones) explicitly condemn homosexuality

If marriage was a religious institution then why can you get married in a registry office? Are straight people who decide to get married in a registry office not technically married? No, they are married. Marriage is a social and legal contract. If gay marriage was made legal in Ireland, gay people cannot be refused from marrying in a church that receives public funding or tax breaks because if they were refused then the government would technically be seen to financially support discrimination. For any institution, private or public, to receive public support they must first be seen to follow the law of the land. Personally, I doubt that gay people would want to get married in a Catholic Church given the RCC's stance on homosexuality.

TylerIE · 24-08-2011 07:54PM

jive wrote: »

Beatings happens for all kinds of reasons. Any 'beating' is unacceptable not sure why a gay beating is being given priority for concern. Gay people are at higher risk because they are not 'normal' in the eyes of many. Given that religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong then there's not much you can do about it because religion is so ingrained in society. You can minimise the problem but it will continue to exist.

Any hate crime should be given a priority, as its the targeting of a specific individual because of very significant part of who that person is.

Most of the differences that I can see from my limited knowledge of civil partnerships is with regards to children. Personally, I don't think gay people should be allowed to rear children due to the way society is currently. In the future yes but it is, in my opinion, in the best interest of the child to grow up with straight parents the way things are currently. This has nothing to do with gay people not being fit to be parents which many of them obviously are. This is a completely different discussion though and while I would support change I won't support gay parents having children with the way things currently are.

Gay parents have children, the law just hasnt caught up with that. There are many many children in Ireland with two dads, or two mothers, but the law doesnt respect them. Hence your point is invalid. Its happening, just the law makes it slightly more difficult and doesnt give the children who have parents of the same gender the same rights it does to others.

It shouldn't be allowed to kick anyone out solely for kissing, gay or otherwise, unless it poses some kind of hazard or interference. I don't see the big deal and I don't see why other people would care, but obviously some do but they are becoming more and more scarce.

Agreed...

TylerIE · 24-08-2011 07:57PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

If marriage was a religious institution then why can you get married in a registry office? Are straight people who decide to get married in a registry office not technically married? No, they are married. Marriage is a social and legal contract. If gay marriage was made legal in Ireland, gay people cannot be refused from marrying in a church that receives public funding or tax breaks because if they were refused then the government would technically be seen to financially support discrimination. Personally, I doubt that gay people would want to get married in a Catholic Church given the RCC's stance on homosexuality.

In most areas that have legalized same sex marriage Churches are exempt from being obliged to provide marriages to same sex couples.

Its probably best that this happens - we do want separation of church and state.

However for the very reason you state, I doubt such exemptions are really an issue that people would protest against.

MagicSean · 24-08-2011 08:00PM

lst wrote: »

Among the differences are:

and of course the fact that its called "Civil Partnership" and has been created to be even called something different to Marriage.

We dont have statistics from Ireland, and Im not in a position to get the US ones. Suffice to say that it does happen, even once is too much. And therefore all discrimination is unacceptable. Anybody could be beaten or killed but a gay male, especially one in the process of coming out or not yet out, may have the real fear of being at higher risk. Iv said before about a taxi driver telling me how he "used to go into town on a Saturday to get the q***rs".... You say they are allowed kiss in Public, others on this thread feel they arent. Because some people will harrass, some gay people are afraid to for fear of this harrassment.

Gay people are currently given the second class legal treatment in that they are not allowed the same rights and responsibilities when it comes to the person they love.

The part you bolded is something that some people on this forum supported. It had seemed that you were one of those who supported it but I stand corrected if you feel that a pub should not be allowed kick out a gay couple for kissing. [assuming a hypothetical scenario]

The childrens rights issue is not really restricted to homosexuals. It's a major problem across all orientations. Basically if the mother and father are not married before the child is born there will be problems.

And trying to suggest that a homophobic beating is in some way worse than a beating for any other reason is ridiculous.

Gay people do not have it worse than anyone else.

jive · 24-08-2011 08:00PM

lst wrote: »

Any hate crime should be given a priority, as its the targeting of a specific individual because of very significant part of who that person is.

Gay parents have children, the law just hasnt caught up with that. There are many many children in Ireland with two dads, or two mothers, but the law doesnt respect them. Hence your point is invalid. Its happening, just the law makes it slightly more difficult and doesnt give the children who have parents of the same gender the same rights it does to others.

Most beatings target a specific individual for one reason or another, be it the way they look or whatever else. I don't think hate crimes should be given priority, personally. I think that beatings of any kind are unacceptable, whether hate crime related or not. Put it this way, if I (a straight male) was beaten up tomorrow and a gay person was beaten up at the same time yet got more guarda resources to solve the crime then I wouldn't be impressed. This would in a sense make me a second class citizen in the eyes of the law which is apparently what gay people are most annoyed about with regards to marriage.

My point is valid, I didn't say it hasn't happened I just said I don't support it. Someone earlier was saying they contemplated suicide because at a young age they thought they couldn't lead a normal life and yet I bet that same person would support having gay parents which let's face it, is not 'normal' in the eyes of society. For the record I have nothing against gay people, I honestly couldn't care less about someones sexuality and don't see a reason why anyone should give a phuck. Honestly, who cares??? I don't understand it and never will.

TylerIE · 24-08-2011 08:03PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The childrens rights issue is not really restricted to homosexuals. It's a major problem across all orientations. Basically if the mother and father are not married before the child is born there will be problems.

Not quite, because Mammy and Daddys name can be in the birth cert, married or not. One parent may have visitation issues but where the two get on amicably the law supports them.

And trying to suggest that a homophobic beating is in some way worse than a beating for any other reason is ridiculous.

No worse, but the intent behind it is worse. Its a hate crime. Id rather be beaten up for money or randomly then because I was gay. Ask a hate crime victim how they feel.

Gay people do not have it worse than anyone else.

Na they only have to come out (or hide) and then (if they come out) face either casual discrimination or statutory discrimination or both for the rest of their lives.... No worse...

Monty. · 24-08-2011 08:08PM

This whole thread is a bit gay

Killer Pigeon · 24-08-2011 08:11PM

jive wrote: »

Most of the differences that I can see from my limited knowledge of civil partnerships is with regards to children. Personally, I don't think gay people should be allowed to rear children due to the way society is currently. In the future yes but it is, in my opinion, in the best interest of the child to grow up with straight parents the way things are currently. This has nothing to do with gay people not being fit to be parents which many of them obviously are. This is a completely different discussion though and while I would support change I won't support gay parents having children with the way things currently are.

Nonsense! Do you think that interracial marriages and child raring amongst married interracial couples was popular in the Southern States of the US when the Jim Crow laws were lifted? Of course they weren't. In fact I'm sure some people could have made such a defeatist case against interracial couples adopting or raring children based on the fact that society hadn't moved on.

Society should never EVER interfere with the inalienable rights of the individual in front of the law. If we deny gay people the right adopt children then society will stay the same and the bigot will be the victor. If we were to follow your ideals then married homosexual couples will never be allowed to adopt children and enjoy the same liberties and rights that heterosexual couples have afforded to them by the state.

MagicSean · 24-08-2011 08:11PM

lst wrote: »

Not quite, because Mammy and Daddys name can be in the birth cert, married or not. One parent may have visitation issues but where the two get on amicably the law supports them.

The mother decides who goes on the birth cert. If she wants to put no name she can. So Daddy has no rights whatever his orientation

lst wrote: »

No worse, but the intent behind it is worse. Its a hate crime. Id rather be beaten up for money or randomly then because I was gay. Ask a hate crime victim how they feel.

Ask a person who has been robbed for their money how they feel. Just as bad I'll bet. If you're lying in a hospital bed with a broken jaw do you really give a dam wether your attacker approved of your orientation?

lst wrote: »

Na they only have to come out (or hide) and then (if they come out) face either casual discrimination or statutory discrimination or both for the rest of their lives.... No worse...

Why do they have to come out or hide? Why do you assume people care? This is what i can't understand. Most homosexuals seem to be of the opinion that the whole world cares about their orientation. We don't.

TylerIE · 24-08-2011 08:13PM

jive wrote: »

Most beatings target a specific individual for one reason or another, be it the way they look or whatever else. I don't think hate crimes should be given priority, personally. I think that beatings of any kind are unacceptable, whether hate crime related or not. Put it this way, if I (a straight male) was beaten up tomorrow and a gay person was beaten up at the same time yet got more guarda resources to solve the crime then I wouldn't be impressed. This would in a sense make me a second class citizen in the eyes of the law which is apparently what gay people are most annoyed about with regards to marriage.

Fair points... I emphasize hate crimes because of the way they target someone because of an innate part of themselves.

My point is valid, I didn't say it hasn't happened I just said I don't support it. Someone earlier was saying they contemplated suicide because at a young age they thought they couldn't lead a normal life and yet I bet that same person would support having gay parents which let's face it, is not 'normal' in the eyes of society. For the record I have nothing against gay people, I honestly couldn't care less about someones sexuality and don't see a reason why anyone should give a phuck. Honestly, who cares??? I don't understand it and never will.

That person stated they contemplated it over issues related to being gay themselves. Not answering for them but often gay teens suddenly realise that the life they assumed they had is not going to happen - no wife and kids, no happy grandparents, etc - straight people generally dont have to go through this.

A child growing up with two loving parents of the same sex is not precluded from living a normal healthy happy life. Indeed if they are children who have been fostered or adopted from care they are in a much better position than children who are left in state care.

Goodshape · 24-08-2011 08:15PM

COYW wrote: »

A female friend of mine and her mates were turned away on a Saturday night for this exact reason. It was said to them straight out. They just laughed it off and went elsewhere. I'd do the same to be honest and think nothing more of it.

Heh. I am gay and I've been turned away from gay bars for apparently not looking like one. Has happened a few times and when stone cold sober. There was definitely no other reason for refusal. And yes, I'd consider that to be also disgraceful. Hope I remember to send a complaint next time.

I disagree with segregation of gay bars anyway. I don't mind having them there as almost a 'theme' bar (so you have disco bars, rock bars, chilled out bars, gay bars, etc., etc.) but if you think I, whether I'm with my boyfriend or not, am going to hang out exclusively in one of these places you can forget it. Can you imagine going abroad and getting sh!t for thinking you can have a pint with friends outside the local designated Irish bar?

And if I'm in a bar, in the street, in a café, anywhere... I'll display exactly the amount of public affection towards my partner as I think is suitable for anyone to display. My sexuality plays as close zero part in that decision as I can possibly manage. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem. Go sit in the bigoted old bastard bar around the corner and leave the rest of us alone.

MagicSean · 24-08-2011 08:17PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Society should never EVER interfere with the inalienable rights of the individual. If we deny gay people the right adopt children then society will stay the same and the bigot will be the victor. If we were to follow your ideals then married homosexual couple will never be allowed to adopt children.

Hang on, there is no inalienable right to have someone elses child. It is only by societys "interference" that adoption is possible at all.

TylerIE · 24-08-2011 08:19PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The mother decides who goes on the birth cert. If she wants to put no name she can. So Daddy has no rights whatever his orientation

Ye thats where Daddy and Mammy dont get on. If the parents have an amicable relationship or if the father pursues legal proceedings he can get access and rights, yet the loving second parent in a same sex relationship gets nothing.

Ask a person who has been robbed for their money how they feel. Just as bad I'll bet. If you're lying in a hospital bed with a broken jaw do you really give a dam wether your attacker approved of your orientation?

Ye I have actually. And they feel worse. Being beaten and robbed is not the same as being beaten just for leaving a gay bar. Ask the families of a victim what they think - how senseless it is to be attacked just because your gay. Being robbed by a junkie is equally unacceptable, but more understandable.

Why do they have to come out or hide? Why do you assume people care? This is what i can't understand. Most homosexuals seem to be of the opinion that the whole world cares about their orientation. We don't.

You know nothing of human feelings apparently, and have no sense of human empathy or decency. So if they dont come out the 17 year old guy brings home another lad some day to Mammy and Daddy? and hopes they take it ok. If your saying "no they dont" then that means hiding it - which ANYBODY Who has come out will tell you is so much worse than letting those around you know. Boys feel the need to come out to avoid the constant "any women" comments, and "will ya look at her" and "any sign of the wedding" comments. Girls similar....

Killer Pigeon · 24-08-2011 08:20PM

lst wrote: »

In most areas that have legalized same sex marriage Churches are exempt from being obliged to provide marriages to same sex couples.

Its probably best that this happens - we do want separation of church and state.

However for the very reason you state, I doubt such exemptions are really an issue that people would protest against.

If a religious organisations did not receive funding from the state or other financial support by means of tax breaks then there is no issue here. A private organisation has the right to refuse it services to anyone it wishes. A Church should not be allowed to receive public funding at the expense of the tax payer or tax breaks if it does not follow the democratically instilled laws of the land. The same should go for any organisation in my opinion.

jive · 24-08-2011 08:22PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

If we deny gay people the right adopt children then society will stay the same and the bigot will be the victor. If we were to follow your ideals then married homosexual couples will never be allowed to adopt children and enjoy the same liberties and rights that heterosexual couples have afforded to them by the state.

Well unless you banish religion from 'catholic' Ireland then there will always be bigotry towards homosexuality. So I disagree with what you've said.

I'm out anyway I've said my bit at this stage!!

Killer Pigeon · 24-08-2011 08:27PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Hang on, there is no inalienable right to have someone elses child. It is only by societys "interference" that adoption is possible at all.

Homosexual couples should have the right to be treated as equally and as fairly as heterosexual couples when applying to an adoption agency. If, let's say, a man has a child with a woman, then that man comes out as gay and (for some reason) is granted full custody of the child, then that man turns around and marries another man, then that other man should be allowed to claim equal guardianship of the child if there is a mutual agreement. I'm not saying that they should have an "inalienable right to have someone else's child", I'm saying that they should have the unalienable right to be treated equally in front of the law, not society.

MagicSean · 24-08-2011 08:27PM

lst wrote: »

Ye thats where Daddy and Mammy dont get on. If the parents have an amicable relationship or if the father pursues legal proceedings he can get access and rights, yet the loving second parent in a same sex relationship gets nothing.

What about a relationship where the biological father is not the man who was married to the mother? He still raises the child but has no rights. You think the partner in the same sex relationship is somehow worse off than the partner in the traditional relationship, even though they both have no rights?

lst wrote: »

Ye I have actually. And they feel worse. Being beaten and robbed is not the same as being beaten just for leaving a gay bar. Ask the families of a victim what they think - how senseless it is to be attacked just because your gay. Being robbed by a junkie is equally unacceptable, but more understandable.

What about people who are beaten for no reason at all? Do they rank higher in your vicitm list than victims of hate crimes?

lst wrote: »

You know nothing of human feelings apparently, and have no sense of human empathy or decency. So if they dont come out the 17 year old guy brings home another lad some day to Mammy and Daddy? and hopes they take it ok. If your saying "no they dont" then that means hiding it - which ANYBODY Who has come out will tell you is so much worse than letting those around you know. Boys feel the need to come out to avoid the constant "any women" comments, and "will ya look at her" and "any sign of the wedding" comments. Girls similar....

Maybe I just don't care what other people think. Or maybe I like to define myself by what i do as opposed to what I am.

Killer Pigeon · 24-08-2011 08:29PM

jive wrote: »

Well unless you banish religion from 'catholic' Ireland then there will always be bigotry towards homosexuality. So I disagree with what you've said.

I'm out anyway I've said my bit at this stage!!

Really? Look how far society has progressed since homosexuality was legalised here in 1993. The church is loosing it's grip on society as we speak, it is no longer relevant.

TylerIE · 24-08-2011 08:35PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

What about a relationship where the biological father is not the man who was married to the mother? He still raises the child but has no rights. You think the partner in the same sex relationship is somehow worse off than the partner in the traditional relationship, even though they both have no rights?

The biological father can still have his name on birth cert if the mother agrees.

What about people who are beaten for no reason at all? Do they rank higher in your vicitm list than victims of hate crimes?

I cant comment on that in an informed manner as I cant recall particularly dealing with people who were beaten for absolutely no reason.

Maybe I just don't care what other people think. Or maybe I like to define myself by what i do as opposed to what I am.

Its nothing to do with caring others opinions - its to do with having familial and social support.

And do you not mean the opposite - you define yourself on who [what] you are, not what you do [hetrosexuality]. Either way gay people generally arent looking to be defined based on sexuality, but they would like their family and friends to treat them the same as their hetrosexual siblings. And for society to treat them with the dignity that would be afforded to them if they loved someone of the opposite gender.

Goodshape · 24-08-2011 08:58PM

On the adoption issue, to the best of my knowledge..

A gay person can, at least in theory (not sure has it ever been tested), adopt a child in this country in the same way that any single person can. That person then becomes the sole parent.

What isn't possible is for any two unmarried people to jointly adopt a child. Marriage between people of the same gender is not recognised in Ireland, so that automatically rules out a gay couple adopting. But not a gay person.

What potentially happens here is that (one) gay man can legally adopt a child, raise that child together with his partner, go as far as Irish law and society will allow in terms of solidifying that partnership (i.e. a civil partnership -- not marriage) -- and yet should that man die, his partner who has helped raise the child for it's entire life has no legal connection to the child whatsoever. In the eyes of the law this is just a stranger, or "family friend" maybe.

How is that fair or justified for any of those three people?

And there's always the impression I get from people shouting down gay adoption that they have some image of a big "Babys 2 Go" store just for the gays, where we can go and pick one up on a whim at the weekend. Really, all we're asking is to be evaluated and assessed on our own individual merits, just like any other applicant.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/adopting_a_child.html

MagicSean · 24-08-2011 09:02PM

lst wrote: »

The biological father can still have his name on birth cert if the mother agrees.

But what good is that to the husband who raises another mans child as his own? He is in the same position as your hypothetical same sex partner.

lst wrote: »

I cant comment on that in an informed manner as I cant recall particularly dealing with people who were beaten for absolutely no reason.

That's a cop out and you know out.

lst wrote: »

Its nothing to do with caring others opinions - its to do with having familial and social support.

Perhaps it's easier for the more independent people.

lst wrote: »

And do you not mean the opposite - you define yourself on who [what] you are, not what you do [hetrosexuality].

What? Your orientation is about who you are not what you do. Isn't that the whole concept behind the equal rights movement?

lst wrote: »

Either way gay people generally arent looking to be defined based on sexuality, but they would like their family and friends to treat them the same as their hetrosexual siblings. And for society to treat them with the dignity that would be afforded to them if they loved someone of the opposite gender.

The gay pride parades kind of fly in the face of that theory.

MagicSean · 24-08-2011 09:03PM

Goodshape wrote: »

On the adoption issue, to the best of my knowledge..

A gay person can, at least in theory (not sure has it ever been tested), adopt a child in this country in the same way that any single person can. That person then becomes the sole parent.

What isn't possible is for any two unmarried people to jointly adopt a child. Marriage between people of the same gender is not recognised in Ireland, so that automatically rules out a gay couple adopting. But not a gay person.

What potentially happens here is that (one) gay man can legally adopt a child, raise that child together with his partner, go as far as Irish law and society will allow in terms of solidifying that partnership (i.e. a civil partnership -- not marriage) -- and yet should that man die, his partner who has helped raise the child for it's entire life has no legal connection to the child whatsoever. In the eyes of the law this is just a stranger, or "family friend" maybe.

How is that fair or justified for any of those three people?

And there's always the impression I get from people shouting down gay adoption that they have some image of a big "Babys 2 Go" store just for the gays, where we can go and pick one up on a whim at the weekend. Really, all we're asking is to be evaluated and assessed on our own individual merits, just like any other applicant.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/adopting_a_child.html

Same sex people can find themselves in the exact same position. It is not only a gay rights issue.

Goodshape · 24-08-2011 09:07PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Same sex people can find themselves in the exact same position. It is not only a gay rights issue.

"Opposite sex people", I assume you mean?

And yeah, two unmarried people of any gender(s) would be treated the same. I think the major difference is that to "go as far as Irish law and society will allow in terms of solidifying that partnership" offers a way out for straight couples. Unfortunately it doesn't matter how much I love my partner, I can't marry him.

TylerIE · 24-08-2011 09:11PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

But what good is that to the husband who raises another mans child as his own? He is in the same position as your hypothetical same sex partner.

The same sex partner is not hypothetical. Its the situation dozens of Irish parents are in. And the husband in your situation can adopt the child with the birth fathers agreement.

That's a cop out and you know out.

No its a situation that I would be surmising about, so dont want to comment.

Perhaps it's easier for the more independent people.

What? Your orientation is about who you are not what you do. Isn't that the whole concept behind the equal rights movement?

You said you like to define yourself by what you do!!!

The gay pride parades kind of fly in the face of that theory.

Gay pride is another discussion. I look upon it as an opportunity for people to see that its Ok to be gay, and for LGBT individuals to celebrate the increased equality they enjoy.

MagicSean · 24-08-2011 09:11PM

Goodshape wrote: »

"Opposite sex people", I assume you mean?

And yeah, two unmarried people of any gender(s) would be treated the same. I think the major difference is that to "go as far as Irish law and society will allow in terms of solidifying that partnership" offers a way out for straight couples. Unfortunately it doesn't matter how much I love my partner, I can't marry him.

Yes that is what i meant. But i am referring to the issue of custody. It has been taken up as a gay rights issue when it is actually an issue that affects many more people.

Gay couple kicked out of bar for kissing on the dancefloor

Comments