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

PDN · 31-07-2012 06:27PM

Nodin wrote: »

To me it appears he objects to the church using its powers as an institution to block same sex marriage, else why bother with "the Church can oppose holding same-sex ceremonies (as archaic as such a view is)".

Because that, by any plain understanding of the English language, refers to the Church refusing to hold same-sex marriages in their churches.

Once again, my position is that the Pope or any other religious leader has an equal right to Barack Obama, Eammon Gilmore or George Clooney when it comes to voicing their opinion on a proposed change in legislation.

To claim that the non-religious should hasve such a right, but that the religious should not, is gross hypocrisy from anyone who claims to advocate tolerance.

robindch · 31-07-2012 06:28PM

PDN wrote: »

I have asked for examples of where anyone is dictating what others can or cannot do. All that have been cited are instances of religious leaders airing their opinion.

It's uncharacteristically naive of you to pretend that a religious leader's opinion is simply an opinion when it is delivered from on high to the leader's flock with every possible circumstance of pomp, tradition and authority. That's not how religion and religious leaders work, as you know.

When Herr Ratzinger opines that gay marriage "threaten(s) [...] the future of humanity itself", and Ratzinger's representative in New York, Timothy Dolan, threatens "a national conflict between church and state", believers will not think of these ravings as the dyspeptic opinions of a couple of unpleasant old men, but (as they've been instructed to) as the immutable, divine will of the creator of the universe.

And as Philologos regularly reminds people, if the religious beliefs are true, then it must be one's sworn moral duty, the object of one's every possible moment, to spread these beliefs, to enact them wherever and whenever possible, as best one can. In essence, to treat these opinions, not as opinions, but as the most urgent form of diktats, just as you were looking for.

However, what you're actually doing here in pretending that these are not diktats -- and, btw, I thoroughly approve of your viewpoint -- is promoting the atheist's perspective that the opinions of religious leaders, while frequently presented as divine diktat, in fact are nothing more than the political or theological opinions of some seriously over-inflated and over-indulged windbags.

Nodin · 31-07-2012 06:34PM

PDN wrote: »

Because that, by any plain understanding of the English language, refers to the Church refusing to hold same-sex marriages in their churches.

Once again, my position is that the Pope or any other religious leader has an equal right to Barack Obama, Eammon Gilmore or George Clooney when it comes to voicing their opinion on a proposed change in legislation.

To claim that the non-religious should hasve such a right, but that the religious should not, is gross hypocrisy from anyone who claims to advocate tolerance.

I rarely defend other posters, save where there message seems unambigous to me. From post 7

People can voice their opinions all they like - it's when they try to
actively obstruct civil rights is when it becomes a problem.

In the same respect - the KKK can tell it's members not the marry black women all they want, but they have absolutely no right whatsoever to try dictate to the rest of the population what race to marry. There is zero different between the two scenarios.

Given the above, I think you're misrepresenting him.

PDN · 31-07-2012 06:34PM

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't his argument. I don't agree with his argument, but as you have put it it is isn't his argument.

dlofnep is saying that churches should not use their power to influence legislation. Their power extends far beyond making public announcements, as has been demonstrated in Ireland over the years when the Catholic Church had massive influence over politics through various manners of manipulate and control.

For example, a favorite tactic of Catholic priests to maintain control on their "flock" is to punish those who act against their teachings by publicly humiliating them through the refusal to grant holy communion.

Now again, let me be clear I don't agree with dlofnep. I think a private organization such as a religious church can act how it likes with regard to its membership and its rules of membership and if people are stupid to be influenced into keeping quite by this then maybe they deserve to be humiliated.

But it is incorrect to frame his objection in terms of free speech as if that is the only outlet the various religious groups have to express objection to those who disagree with them. It significantly down plays the power religious organisations have over their members through the manipulation of their reputation and standing in the wider society.

Sophistry. You are dancing round intolerance to try to make it more palatable.

dlofnep is saying that churches should not use their power to influence legislation. Their power extends far beyond making public announcements, as has been demonstrated in Ireland over the years when the Catholic Church had massive influence over politics through various manners of manipulate and control.

Really? Then why can't he point to a single instance where, in respect to gay marriage, religious leaders have done anything other than express their views?

For example, a favorite tactic of Catholic priests to maintain control on their "flock" is to punish those who act against their teachings by publicly humiliating them through the refusal to grant holy communion.

If there are instances where people have been threatened with excommunication in order to hinder legislation on gay marriage, then I will gladly join you in decrying such behaviour. How many such instances can you point to?

But it is incorrect to frame his objection in terms of free speech as if that is the only outlet the various religious groups have to express objection to those who disagree with them. It significantly down plays the power religious organisations have over their members through the manipulation of their reputation and standing in the wider society.

When Barack Obama or George Clooney expresses an opinion, they aremanipulating their reputation and standing in the wider community. Sauce+Goose+Gander=Secularism

doctoremma · 31-07-2012 06:39PM

PDN wrote: »

Read the first page of the thread, particularly the disturbing views expressed by dlofnep. In post 7 he argues that religious leaders should not have the right to express their opinions against gay marriage.

I'm afraid I simply don't see that. Which particular statement do you feel implies this?

Edit: D'oh, didn't register the ensuing conversation before posting this.

PDN · 31-07-2012 06:41PM

robindch wrote: »

When Herr Ratzinger opines that gay marriage "threaten(s) [...] the future of humanity itself", and Ratzinger's representative in New York, Timothy Dolan, threatens "a national conflict between church and state", believers will not think of these ravings as the dyspeptic opinions of a couple of unpleasant old men, but (as they've been instructed to) as the immutable, divine will of the creator of the universe.

So your objection to religious leaders expressing their views is based on the fact that a large number of people might actually listen to those views? That is very democratic of you.

Maybe you should try harder in putting forth your point of view and thus wage a war of ideas, rather than one of restricting free speech.

And as Philologos regularly reminds people, if the religious beliefs are true, then it must be one's sworn moral duty, the object of one's every possible moment, to spread these beliefs, to enact them wherever and whenever possible, as best one can. In essence, to treat these opinions, not as opinions, but as the most urgent form of diktats, just as you were looking for.

You're not having a very good day, are you? Your point is irrelevant. Free speech should not be limited to those whose ideas only attract luke warm support.

However, what you're actually doing here in pretending that these are not diktats -- and, btw, I thoroughly approve of your viewpoint -- is promoting the atheist's perspective that the opinions of religious leaders, while frequently presented as divine diktat, in fact are nothing more than the political or theological opinions of some seriously over-inflated and over-indulged windbags.

No, I'm promoting a secularist's viewpoint that, in the eyes of the law, pronouncements by religious leaders should not carry any more weight, or any less weight, than those of any other individual.

What I personally think of the Pope's pronouncements is irrelevant to the principle of equal rights for all.

philologos · 31-07-2012 06:46PM

Here's a brief skim through:

A brief overview of papers which show the benefit of being raised with both biological parents:
http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/30-years-of-research-that-tells-us-a-child-deserves-a-mother-and-a-father/

Children 'safer with biological parent' - The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/children-safer-with-biological-parent/story-e6frg8y6-1111116267294

An overview of the benefits of growing up with biological mother and father:
http://foryourmarriage.org/married-parents-are-important-for-children/

This article looking again at the research notes the following:

First, research clearly demonstrates that family
structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed
by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families headed by two biological parents. Parental divorce is also linked to a range of poorer academic and behavioral outcomes among children. There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents

What is so wrong about saying that that should be encouraged then if this is the case?

It is also important to note that the article does say this also:

Research findings linking family structure and parents’ marital status with children’s well-being
are very consistent. The majority of children who are not raised by both biological parents manage to
grow up without serious problems, especially after period of adjustment for children whose parents
divorce

It's simply wrong to say that there isn't research that shows that children are better off with biological parents. Not to mention other studies that show that fathers and mothers benefit their children in different ways.

See here: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm
Or here: http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/fathers.php

All I and others are arguing for is that marriage between a man and a woman is seen as a different family structure to one that cannot provide a child with both a mother and a father.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am certainly not saying shut up and I do recognise the attraction of the 'ideal' and why some people would prefer that that concept is given a special status. I just don't happen to agree with that point of view.

You may not be, but many others on this thread are.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The issue as I see it is that the ideal is rarely, if ever, the real. Nor is is always as ideal in reality as it is in our minds. To return to the sunny every day in Summer analogy. Were that to actually occur we would have hose pipe bans, farmers and gardeners complaining about lack of rain and withered crops, people wandering around with parts of their bodies exposed to public view that I think most of us would really rather not see, free sun burn for everyone in the country, our beaches and parks left looking like landfill sites, flies everywhere etc etc etc. Not so ideal eh?

You do know, that when we look to studies and such concerning biological parents or gender roles, these studies aren't looking to anomalies, they are looking to the ordinary to see what the case is.

Yes, it is an ideal, but to say that it is a rare ideal isn't true. Mothers and fathers have a key role to play in raising children. The sunny every day in summer analogy fails, because it isn't generally sunny every day in summer. However, it is generally true that children who are raised with biological parents benefit as a result.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And sometimes the nuclear family model is not ideal either. It can be a place of abuse, fear, sorrow and uncertainly. The introduction of divorce has opened the door to freedom for many trapped in awful marriages but that does not mean that every nuclear family is a bed of roses for all within - or maybe it is - looks good from a distance but full of thorns, aphids and blackspot when you look closely.

Extremely rarely. In fact research that has been done into this suggests that the likelihood for abuse in marriages with both biological parents is significantly lower than in other relationship structures.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a society we have to deal with what is already reality, not hanker after the impossible - and the idea that every single child in Ireland will have a mammy and a daddy and they will all live in some super state of nuclear family bliss is never going to be true and no amount of legislation will make it so. We may as well bring in a law saying it will only rain for 2 hours, during the night in June/July/Aug and the average daily temp. will be 23 degrees Celsius with a light refreshing breeze.

Indeed, we do, and it's really true that in most cases biological parents are best for children. That's real, it's not a fairy tale!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But the reality, that no legislation is ever going to change, is that not every child has two parents. Do we say that one parent + child(ren) is not a family?

I never said that. I understand that there are situations where it isn't ideal, and I think the Government should support these situations, but I think that a marriage should still be distinct. I.E - The union between a man and a woman, the only relationship structure that can truly provide a child with a mother and a father for longer.

Married couples are 70% likely to provide a child with a mother and a father according to one of the links I've provided above. Unmarried are 34% likely.

The reality is that some children do have two parents, but the law as it stands does not recognise this - this applies to same-sex couples and unmarried fathers alike.

The reality is that many lesbian and Gay couples want to marry not to cheapen or lessen what marriage means but because they respect it and want to embrace life commitment and fidelity. Can you honestly say that every single heterosexual who married feels the same way?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

All campaigners for equality - in particular those couples with children - are asking for is to be allowed to embrace a slight variation on what you hold up as the ideal. They believe children should have two parents and want to legally ensure that is the case.

Campaigners for redefinition, you mean.

The problem with that position as far as I can see it is it says that a man can truly replace a mother, and a woman can truly replace a father. I don't believe that is true.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But - is that enough of a reason to deny the children growing up in families headed by same-sex couples the security of having two legally recognised parents?

I think that civil partnership should be regarded as being distinct to a marriage because a civil partnership is a different relationship structure.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Could it not be argued that a stance such as yours - were it to become the official position of the Irish government - would punish children because their parent's 'lifestyle is not 'ideal'?

Not at all. It simply suggests that we should encourage marriage. I would never dream of saying that the State shouldn't protect, and advocate for other children.

doctoremma · 31-07-2012 06:55PM

PDN wrote: »

Really? Then why can't he point to a single instance where, in respect to gay marriage, religious leaders have done anything other than express their views?

Did you catch this story from the UK?

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1056

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/25/exclusive-catholic-school-urged-pupils-as-young-as-11-to-sign-anti-gay-marriage-petition/

The Catholic Education Service confirmed to PinkNews.co.uk that it had written to at least 359 Catholic state secondary schools in England and Wales last month asking them to draw attention to a letter by senior archbishops which told Catholics of their “duty” to do “all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations”.

philologos · 31-07-2012 07:00PM

This study criticising some of the methods used by the APA's research concerning same-sex marriage is also interesting:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

We now return to the overarching question of this paper: Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that provides a context for children that is equivalent to the traditional marriage-based family? Even after an extensive reading of the same-sex parenting literature, the author cannot offer a high confidence, data-based “yes” or “no” response to this question. To restate, not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 23–45; see Table 1) compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them (e.g., Table 2).

Some opponents of same-sex parenting have made “egregious overstatements”97 disparaging gay and lesbian parents. Conversely, some same-sex parenting researchers seem to have contended for an “exceptionally clear”98 verdict of “no difference” between same-sex and heterosexual parents since 1992. However, a closer examination leads to the conclusion that strong, generalized assertions, including those made by the APA Brief, were not empirically warranted.99 As noted by Shiller (2007) in American Psychologist, “the line between science and advocacy appears blurred” (p. 712).

Bannasidhe · 31-07-2012 07:02PM

PDN wrote: »

When Barack Obama or George Clooney expresses an opinion, they aremanipulating their reputation and standing in the wider community. Sauce+Goose+Gander=Secularism

I cannot agree that Americans, for example, would view either Obama or Clooney 's statements in the same way as Roman Catholic's would view the Pope's.

Obama, Clooney, yer man from the fried chicken place, Fred Phelps are giving their opinion. One may agree or disagree, but will see it as personal opinion. Yes, some people will be swayed by it, but them some people are swayed by TV ads that imply if they wear a certain aftershave women will fall out of the sky at their feet.

That is not the relationship the Pope, in his official capacity, has with millions of Roman Catholics who would view his statement not as his personal opinion but, as they see him as the only conduit through which the word of God is transmitted, the opinion of God himself.

As I said all those pages ago, if he had said - 'personally, I believe...' I would have no issue with that. But he didn't. He issued his statements in his capacity as leader of the largest Christian denomination in the world whose pronouncements carry the weight of God's word behind them as far as devout Catholics are concerned.

His word is law for Catholics. Obama's is not for Americans. To me that is the difference and it is an important one. Catholics, at least devout ones, are obliged by their vows to heed and obey the Papacy. American's would rightly laugh at the suggestion that their President's every pronouncement carried the weight of law - and then take him to the Supreme Court for getting above himself and exceeding his authority.

For Roman Catholics there is no court of appeal as they believe the Pope speaks for God.

Now I don't believe he does, I doubt that you believe he does. But neither of us are Catholics so he was not speaking to us. But in my case he was speaking about me and saying that were I, and others like me, to formalise my relationship with my partner I would pose a threat to humanity itself. I take personal exception to that.

I plead guilty of being intolerant of institutionalised intolerance. Especially when that intolerance is alleged have it's origins in the very being that Christians tell me loves me so much that he sent his son to die for me.

Bannasidhe · 31-07-2012 07:16PM

Phil - So what do you suggest the State does about those children currently being raised in families headed by same-sex couples? Leave them in the legal limbo they currently inhabit as their situation does not conform to the 'ideal'? Deny them two legal parents even though in their everyday lives they have two parents?

philologos · 31-07-2012 07:22PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Phil - So what do you suggest the State does about those children currently being raised in families headed by same-sex couples? Leave them in the legal limbo they currently inhabit as their situation does not conform to the 'ideal'? Deny them two legal parents even though in their everyday lives they have two parents?

I'm not saying that anyone should deny anything. Simply regard marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and regard civil partnership for formalising a relationship with another of the same gender. They are different things as far as I see it. There are questions as to what level of involvement the other biological parent should have in the child's life in the case of same-sex relationships though.

dlofnep · 31-07-2012 07:23PM

PDN wrote: »

dlofnep clearly stated that he does not believe in that equality of free speech.

What a disingenuous post. Not once have I ever objected to people voicing their opinion - I highlighted (justifiably) that because same-sex marriage is a civil affair, and not a religious one - there are no grounds for objection based on religious grounds.

At no point did I say that you can't express yourself. Not once. What I object to is a religious institution using it's position of power within society, from obstructing basic civil rights. It's over-stepping it's boundaries and role as an institution of faith. Now they can define religion if they so wish, and state that they oppose same-sex marriage - but it is absolutely irrelevant in any practical sense. Just as the views of those who opposed same-race drinking fountains in the south of the US were irrelevant in any practical sense. Civil rights trumps bronze-age superstitions, every single time. You don't get to dictate the rights of others.

philologos · 31-07-2012 07:33PM

dlofnep wrote: »

At no point did I say that you can't express yourself. Not once. What I object to is a religious institution using it's position of power within society, from obstructing basic civil rights. It's over-stepping it's boundaries and role as an institution of faith. Now they can define religion if they so wish, and state that they oppose same-sex marriage - but it is absolutely irrelevant in any practical sense. Just as the views of those who opposed same-race drinking fountains in the south of the US were irrelevant in any practical sense. Civil rights trumps bronze-age superstitions, every single time. You don't get to dictate the rights of others.

Just speaking an opinion is to a certain extent influencing society. The idea that a child for the most part should be raised with a mother and a father isn't a "bronze-age superstition" either

. This should be debated and discussed in a mature democracy. Telling people to shut up over the subject is just childish.

For the record though - that's a ridiculous argument anyway. If something is true, it doesn't matter how old it is.

The race analogy has been shown to be false many times on this thread already.

Zombrex · 31-07-2012 07:38PM

PDN wrote: »

Sophistry. You are dancing round intolerance to try to make it more palatable.

Palatable to who, I already said I don't agree with it.

Are you saying that if that was his argument you would agree more? Great, I love bringing people together ...

PDN wrote: »

Really? Then why can't he point to a single instance where, in respect to gay marriage, religious leaders have done anything other than express their views?

I don't know, maybe he is moron. What does that have to do with the fact that the influence of the various religious churches extend far beyond simply making public announcements on their position?

PDN wrote: »

If there are instances where people have been threatened with excommunication in order to hinder legislation on gay marriage, then I will gladly join you in decrying such behaviour. How many such instances can you point to?

None, but then it wasn't my argument and I don't agree with dlofnep.

You do appear to agree with him though, at least in principle though you appear to be suggesting this never happens or has happened in the past.

PDN wrote: »

When Barack Obama or George Clooney expresses an opinion, they aremanipulating their reputation and standing in the wider community. Sauce+Goose+Gander=Secularism

I'm not talking about the reputation of the person making the statement. I'm saying that religion controls the reputations of others. All public figures of course have a wider audience if they want to bash the reputation of another. But by acting as moral authorities church leaders have the ability to ruin the reputation of members of the church within the church community and even wider community by simply declaring them immoral or acting in an immoral fashion, which goes far beyond the influence ordinary Joe Soap or even George Clooney possess. They can also control the access this member has (or more specifically doesn't have) to the church and community they have become a part of.

While personally I feel they still have the right to do this since churches are effectively private members clubs, it would be grossly naive to pretend that this doesn't put church leaders in significant positions of power with in these communities. You only have to look at Irelands past and the influence the Catholic leaders had in all areas of life to see this.

But all this is some what moot since you seem to agree with dlofnep in the first place. So I find myself once again in a position of bewilderment as to why you are actually arguing.

dlofnep · 31-07-2012 07:46PM

philologos wrote: »

Just speaking an opinion is to a certain extent influencing society.

I've never objected to anyone speaking their opinion.

philologos wrote: »

The idea that a child for the most part should be raised with a mother and a father isn't a "bronze-age superstition" either .

I was referring to the idea that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and that most certainly is a bronze-age superstition. I've already highlighted that same-sex marriage is a civil affair, not a religious one. If you want to object to same-sex marriage being held in your church, go for it. But to try and dictate whether or not two consenting adults can cement their love in marriage in a civil matter is absurd.

philologos wrote: »

This should be debated and discussed in a mature democracy. Telling people to shut up over the subject is just childish.

I've never told anyone to 'shut up', and I'd appreciate it if you didn't descend into strawman arguments.

philologos wrote: »

The race analogy has been shown to be false many times on this thread already.

Racial segregation, which affected basic civil rights such as the Jim Crow laws were driven in part on religious grounds, by white Christians in the south of the US. It's absolutely appropriate to compare it to the ongoing efforts by Christians who seek to stop same-sex marriage in Ireland (And around the world). So no, I reject your assertion that my analogy has no merit.

Zombrex · 31-07-2012 07:46PM

philologos wrote: »

What is so wrong about saying that that should be encouraged then if this is the case?

Because it has nothing to do with gay marriage or gay adoption, unless you are suggesting that children will be taken from their biological parents and given to gay couples.

This has been put to you numerous times and you just keep ignoring the point. Your central objection to gay marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

philologos wrote: »

It's simply wrong to say that there isn't research that shows that children are better off with biological parents. Not to mention other studies that show that fathers and mothers benefit their children in different ways.

The argument is over whether adopted children are better off with straight or gay couples. There is no evidence that adopted children are any better off with a couple simply because they are straight.

Bannasidhe · 31-07-2012 07:54PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm not saying that anyone should deny anything. Simply regard marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and regard civil partnership for formalising a relationship with another of the same gender. They are different things as far as I see it. There are questions as to what level of involvement the other biological parent should have in the child's life in the case of same-sex relationships though.

So would you like to see two distinct means or couple to enter into a committed, legally binding, life partnership - #1 named 'Marriage' which is applicable to opposite gender couples and #2 named 'Civil Partnership' which is applicable to same-sex couples?

Would you have an objection to both pieces of legislation being exactly the same otherwise?

As for the 'other' biological parent, so to speak, would you believe that there are questions also to be asked in the case of a heterosexual non-biological parent adopting his/her partner's biological children regarding the level of involvement in the children's lives by their 'other' biological parent?

philologos · 31-07-2012 07:59PM

dlofnep wrote: »

I was referring to the idea that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and that most certainly is a bronze-age superstition. I've already highlighted that same-sex marriage is a civil affair, not a religious one. If you want to object to same-sex marriage being held in your church, go for it. But to try and dictate whether or not two consenting adults can cement their love in marriage in a civil matter is absurd.

Redefining marriage, and changing it naturally concerns people who believe that marriage as the union between a man and a woman is beneficial to children and should be left as is.

That's a civil issue also, and people of all religions and none can have an opinion on civil matters.

For the record, for me it isn't much an issue of formalising relationships. That's what a civil partnership is for.

dlofnep wrote: »

I've never told anyone to 'shut up', and I'd appreciate it if you didn't descend into strawman arguments.

Your response to PDN implied it. I may have been mistaken, but there was certainly a lack of clarity in your post.

dlofnep wrote: »

Racial segregation, which affected basic civil rights such as the Jim Crow laws were driven in part on religious grounds, by white Christians in the south of the US. It's absolutely appropriate to compare it to the ongoing efforts by Christians who seek to stop same-sex marriage in Ireland (And around the world). So no, I reject your assertion that my analogy has no merit.

Race != Sexual orientation.

One is biologically determined, there is no evidence to suggest the other is.

philologos · 31-07-2012 08:02PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So would you like to see two distinct means or couple to enter into a committed, legally binding, life partnership - #1 named 'Marriage' which is applicable to opposite gender couples and #2 named 'Civil Partnership' which is applicable to same-sex couples?

Of course.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would you have an objection to both pieces of legislation being exactly the same otherwise?

The best interests of children need to be considered when it comes to adoption, but otherwise admittedly I can't say I would have much issue with them being similar. The ideal is still marriage as far as I see it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for the 'other' biological parent, so to speak, would you believe that there are questions also to be asked in the case of a heterosexual non-biological parent adopting his/her partner's biological children regarding the level of involvement in the children's lives by their 'other' biological parent?

Yes, the same rules apply. The other biological parent has a fundamental right to be involved in their child's life unless there is serious reason to suggest that they shouldn't such as domestic violence or serious abuse.

Zombrex: There are a number of studies which show that fathers and mothers benefit their children in differing ways. That needs to be considered also.

Zombrex · 31-07-2012 08:02PM

philologos wrote: »

Race != Sexual orientation.

One is biologically determined, there is no evidence to suggest the other is.

What?

It has been argued to death on this forum that even if homosexuality is biologically determined and naturally forming that has no bearing on if it is either moral or harmful.

Mixed race marriage is not tolerated because you can't control your race. It is tolerated because there is freaking nothing wrong with it.

philologos · 31-07-2012 08:06PM

Zombrex wrote: »

What?

It has been argued to death on this forum that even if homosexuality is biologically determined and naturally forming that has no bearing on if it is either moral or harmful.

Mixed race marriage is not tolerated because you can't control your race. It is tolerated because there is freaking nothing wrong with it.

Irrespective Zombrex, there is a difference between sexuality and race, and it is unhelpful for people like dfolnep to blur the lines particularly when there is no good reason to do so.

dfolnep is also ignoring the reality that structurally a family with a mother and a father is a different kettle of fish from a family with two of the same gender. The question comes down to whether or not a man can truly replace a mother, or a woman truly replace a father. I don't think so.

There is no structural difference when it comes to race. There is when it comes to gender roles in child development.

Bloodwing · 31-07-2012 08:08PM

Everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how wrong it is, that includes the pope, but if you are going to air your opinion in public you will be expected to support it with evidence. Its simply not good enough to say gay marriage/ same sex couples adopting will have a negative effect on society without showing evidence to support that position.

There are a lot of similarities between those against same sex marriage and those against interracial marriage. The arguments put forward by the anti gay brigade such as "if we allow this we'll have to allow all kinds of stuff" and the "protecting children" arguments are almost identical to the arguments put forward in 1967 by McIlwaine in LOVING v. VIRGINIA. Here we stand, all these years later and society still stands and the children are doing OK.

Any one who feels that allowing same sex marriage weakens the sanctity of their own marriage needs to take a good look at their own marriage, because if it can be weakened by the actions of others who are no way involved in your life then maybe your relationship has some underlying issues.

Homosexual people pose no danger to society. The biggest danger to society today are the bigots who cannot accept others for what they are or how they live their life. What business is it of yours (you know who you are) what other people do with their life?

I'm asking any of the anti gay marriage or anti gay adoption people here to tell us exactly how YOUR life will be negatively affected if this becomes legal and standard practice? It's not good enough to quote your holy book here because frankly words written hundreds of years ago hold no relevance in modern society and although you want to live by them in the hope of finding something better the rest of us don't see them as anything more than words on a page.

PopePalpatine · 31-07-2012 08:16PM

philologos wrote: »

Race != Sexual orientation.

One is biologically determined, there is no evidence to suggest the other is.

Did you choose to be straight?

Bannasidhe · 31-07-2012 08:20PM

philologos wrote: »

Of course.

The best interests of children need to be considered when it comes to adoption, but otherwise admittedly I can't say I would have much issue with them being similar. The ideal is still marriage as far as I see it.

Yes, the same rules apply. The other biological parent has a fundamental right to be involved in their child's life unless there is serious reason to suggest that they shouldn't such as domestic violence or serious abuse.

Zombrex: There are a number of studies which show that fathers and mothers benefit their children in differing ways. That needs to be considered also.

I could live with that. I must admit I, personally, think it's a bit silly and legally cumbersome to have two distinct pieces of legislation that are the same (not similar - the same) in every regard but have different titles depending on which sexual orientation they are applicable to. But as long as they were the same I would have no objection. As I mentioned, I have no investment in the word marriage.

The best interests of the child should always be paramount when it comes to adoption. Sometimes the 'best' would be a straight couple and sometimes it would be a Gay couple. Decisions should always be made on a case by case basis.

As for the 'other' biological parent. As the current legislation re: married couples stands a child cannot be adopted by the spouse of the biological parent if the 'other' biological parent has already been legally identified as their parent. I would see no reason to change that as the child(ren) have two legally recognised parents already. In the situation where the child legally has only one parent I see no reason why the gender of the non-biological parent should be a factor in denying the adoption.

All of this biological/non-biological/'other' biological is beginning to addle me.

philologos · 31-07-2012 08:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I could live with that. I must admit I, personally, think it's a bit silly and legally cumbersome to have two distinct pieces of legislation that are the same (not similar - the same) in every regard but have different titles depending on which sexual orientation they are applicable to. But as long as they were the same I would have no objection. As I mentioned, I have no investment in the word marriage.

A civil partnership isn't the same thing as a marriage, precisely because a civil partnership can never provide a child with a mother and a father as far as I can tell.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The best interests of the child should always be paramount when it comes to adoption. Sometimes the 'best' would be a straight couple and sometimes it would be a Gay couple. Decisions should always be made on a case by case basis.

In the vast majority of cases a child is better off with a mother and a father. But I do agree with you, there could be cases where this differs.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for the 'other' biological parent. As the current legislation re: married couples stands a child cannot be adopted by the spouse of the biological parent if the 'other' biological parent has already been legally identified as their parent. I would see no reason to change that as the child(ren) have two legally recognised parents already. In the situation where the child legally has only one parent I see no reason why the gender of the non-biological parent should be a factor in denying the adoption.

The other biological parent should have a role in a child's life. It would be absolutely immoral to suggest that wouldn't be the case as far as I can tell. That is irrespective of whether or not it is a heterosexual relationship.

There are questions over the legal right of sperm donors also. The reality is when we are talking about situations where insemination must come through artificial means, the rights of biological fathers or mothers comes into consideration.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

All of this biological/non-biological/'other' biological is beginning to addle me.

Addle you as it may, this is going to come under discussion.

Neilos: Except for the huge gaping difference that race doesn't change family structure, and gender does? - It's dishonesty in the highest order to blur the lines like that.

Bloodwing · 31-07-2012 08:43PM

philologos wrote: »

Neilos: Except for the huge gaping difference that race doesn't change family structure, and gender does? - It's dishonesty in the highest order to blur the lines like that.

Two parents and a child? Where's the change in family structure? I have not been dishonest in any way, take a look at the court case i linked to, the arguments made there are the same as the arguments being made here. To deny that is dishonesty in the highest order.

Bannasidhe · 31-07-2012 08:53PM

philologos wrote: »

A civil partnership isn't the same thing as a marriage, precisely because a civil partnership can never provide a child with a mother and a father as far as I can tell.

In the vast majority of cases a child is better off with a mother and a father. But I do agree with you, there could be cases where this differs.

The other biological parent should have a role in a child's life. It would be absolutely immoral to suggest that wouldn't be the case as far as I can tell. That is irrespective of whether or not it is a heterosexual relationship.

There are questions over the legal right of sperm donors also. The reality is when we are talking about situations where insemination must come through artificial means, the rights of biological fathers or mothers comes into consideration.

Addle you as it may, this is going to come under discussion.

Neilos: Except for the huge gaping difference that race doesn't change family structure, and gender does? - It's dishonesty in the highest order to blur the lines like that.

In the cases of individuals/couples - Lesbian/Gay and Straight -who have used surrogacy/insemination etcthat I know of the issues were thrashed out and a mutual agreement was reached before ever a sperm touched an egg. I see no reason why this should not continue.

My own son has all the details (now 28 years old so they may be out of date) I have on his biological father but to be honest has never shown any serious inclination to seek him out bar a few half hearted internet searches. I did ask son of mine when his first child was due if that made him change his mind and he was firmly of the opinion that he already has two parents to nag him thank you very much. Which is a bit of a shame imho has his paternal grandmother is one of the nicest women on the face of the planet and I would like him and his children to have a relationship with her.
It was completely his biological father's decision not to involved himself.

I deal with addled very well thank you. Biological/non-biological/'other' biological is a doddle compared to my working life spent reading early modern documents in English/Irish/Latin and Spanish and researching the genealogies of Gaelic Irish families all written in Early Modern Irish.

philologos · 31-07-2012 09:05PM

Neilos wrote: »

Two parents and a child? Where's the change in family structure? I have not been dishonest in any way, take a look at the court case i linked to, the arguments made there are the same as the arguments being made here. To deny that is dishonesty in the highest order.

Mother and a father, versus two parents no mother or two parents no father.

Yes, there's a difference. It's dishonest to compare this to race.

philologos · 31-07-2012 09:08PM

By the by, it's not just the liberty of the child to have free access to their biological parents, it should be the liberty of the biological parents to have access to their child if they desire it.

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

Comments