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

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

1…1011131516…218

Comments

  • #362
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I was 21 when homosexuality was decriminalised here....I felt no need to go out and 'become' gay....


  • #363
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    At some stage, it would be nice if all the people claiming society will be ruined/wrecked/destroyed by whatever it is they're objecting to, would learn from history and realise society is a lot more resilient and accepting than they give it credit for.

    And to apply that to the wider topic of civil marriage rights, can someone please point to any of the countries introduced such rights and show how their societies have been ruined because of those rights.


    I am not sure if Gay marriage will help or not.. Its their life. But the reality is that Gay Culture esp among men.. has many sides to it. Gay men are less than 10% of male population yet in 2010 MSM accounted for 40% of the 331 HIV infections in Ireland.

    The number of men dying from STD's increased more than 80% in the 2nd half of the last century with the Gay revolution.(1950's to 2000).

    The First gay couple to Marry in Canada divorced shortly afterwards.

    Huffington post (very liberal) says that "Note that the percentage of couples that get divorced eventually is close to 50%"

    OK its a free world, if people want rights to safe guard their relationship and they want to stick a label on it calling it a Marriage.. well its a Name.

    But I suppose the bigger question is what has the whole Gay culture got to offer someone with a Gay Sexuality.

    I think Gay women handle it better in the sense they have more stable long term partnerships.. But sadly the Gay male culture is not ideal for a gay man to follow. It shows in the lower number of gay male "marriages" and the higher numbers of STD infections.

    Will marriage do anything to help them?


  • #364
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    I am not sure if Gay marriage will help or not.. Its their life. But the reality is that Gay Culture esp among men.. has many sides to it. Gay men are less than 10% of male population yet in 2010 MSM accounted for 40% of the 331 HIV infections in Ireland.

    The number of men dying from STD's increased more than 80% in the 2nd half of the last century with the Gay revolution.(1950's to 2000).

    The First gay couple to Marry in Canada divorced shortly afterwards.

    Huffington post (very liberal) says that "Note that the percentage of couples that get divorced eventually is close to 50%"

    OK its a free world, if people want rights to safe guard their relationship and they want to stick a label on it calling it a Marriage.. well its a Name.

    But I suppose the bigger question is what has the whole Gay culture got to offer someone with a Gay Sexuality.

    I think Gay women handle it better in the sense they have more stable long term partnerships.. But sadly the Gay male culture is not ideal for a gay man to follow. It shows in the lower number of gay male "marriages" and the higher numbers of STD infections.

    Will marriage do anything to help them?


    You don't know many lesbians do you?


  • #365
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You don't know many lesbians do you?

    Well my brother has a Partner for the last 13 years and he has some Lesbian friends.


  • #366
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    Well my brother has a Partner for the last 13 years and he has some Lesbian friends.

    That's a no so.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, where have I said that it will turn people gay?

    When you said it will distort their gender and sexuality. What is distorting someones sexuality if not changing it from heterosexual?


  • #368
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    I am not sure if Gay marriage will help or not.. Its their life. But the reality is that Gay Culture esp among men.. has many sides to it. Gay men are less than 10% of male population yet in 2010 MSM accounted for 40% of the 331 HIV infections in Ireland.

    The number of men dying from STD's increased more than 80% in the 2nd half of the last century with the Gay revolution.(1950's to 2000).

    The First gay couple to Marry in Canada divorced shortly afterwards.

    Huffington post (very liberal) says that "Note that the percentage of couples that get divorced eventually is close to 50%"

    Not that higher than the overall then so...
    Although the number of divorces has shown recent declines, in 2008 it was estimated that 41 per cent of marriages will end in divorce before the 30th year of marriage, an increase from 36 per cent in 1998,” Ms. Kelly writes.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/divorce-rates-drop-across-canada/article4096512/


  • #369
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    IThe First gay couple to Marry in Canada divorced shortly afterwards.

    According to this article they were together a year and a half later.

    According to this article, they were still together ten years later and celebrated the anniversary by renewing their vows.

    I can't find any reference to them being divorced. Please provide a link.
    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    Huffington post (very liberal) says that "Note that the percentage of couples that get divorced eventually is close to 50%"

    Interesting how you cut out the first and last parts of that passage:
    About 1% of the total number of currently-married or registered same-sex couples get divorced each year, in comparison to about 2% of the total number of married straight couples. Note that the percentage of couples that get divorced eventually is close to 50%, but only 1% or 2% of them get divorced in any particular year.

    A few points on that passage. Firstly, I can't see where the author of the article got that 50% figure from. The only divorce/dissolution statistics I can find in the report are those 1% and 2% for same sex and opposite sex couples respectively.

    Secondly, the dissolution rate for same sex couples is probably lower again. Some the dissolution figures from some states for domestic partnerships didn't distinguish if the couple was same sex or opposite sex. So the authors of the report made the conservative assumption that all dissolutions in those states are for same-sex couples.

    As for the rest of your post, I think it's safe for me to assume that the other statistics and figures are incorrect or misquoted as well. If you have back up for them, please provide it.


  • #370
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zombrex wrote: »
    When you said it will distort their gender and sexuality. What is distorting someones sexuality if not changing it from heterosexual?

    TBH, its far from harmless. It is a strategic framework for breaking down a childs natural insticts towards gender divide, family and sexuality. It also makes no apologies for the fact that it cares not a jot for the moral position of parents etc. I have no issue with an anti-homophobe part of a curriculum aimed at an age appropriate class. However, this framework sets out to quash the natural instincts of growing Children, and break up any traditional family values etc. From Kindergarten up.

    Some may see it as encouraging inclusivity, but myself and many others see it as distorting gender, sexuality and family to very young children.

    Now, please tell me how this translates into, 'It will turn kids gay'?


  • #371
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    TBH, its far from harmless. It is a strategic framework for breaking down a childs natural insticts towards gender divide, family and sexuality. It also makes no apologies for the fact that it cares not a jot for the moral position of parents etc. I have no issue with an anti-homophobe part of a curriculum aimed at an age appropriate class. However, this framework sets out to quash the natural instincts of growing Children, and break up any traditional family values etc. From Kindergarten up.

    Some may see it as encouraging inclusivity, but myself and many others see it as distorting gender, sexuality and family to very young children.

    Now, please tell me how this translates into, 'It will turn kids gay'?

    I just did. Can you explain what you meant by altering or distorting their sexuality if you didn't mean turning them from heterosexuals into another sexuality, such as homosexuality? Because frankly Jimi that is the most obvious interpretation of what you said even if that wasn't what you meant (through frankly I'm at a loss as to what else you could have meant).


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    JimiTime wrote: »
    TBH, I wont indulge the argument in relation to Fathers or Mothers being inconsequential. This may be construed as a cop out, and I'm fine with that. I just wouldn't be known for my patience, and would not have the patience for such an argument.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Some people would interpret that statement as meaning 'I don't actually have a valid response so I'm simply going to adopt a pseudo higher moral stance position about indulging in arguments.'

    Not saying I'm one of them mind, just pointing out that in the context of your previous statements and previous willingness to indulge in argument some people might.
    I am. What a crock.


  • #373
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I am. What a crock.

    And I'm fine with that. If someone is asserting that a mother is not important, then I'm not the one to ask to explain it. Similarly, if someone is asserting that fathers are not important, I'm not the the one to ask to explain it. My instinct would be to tell you to grow a brain. If the info is not within you already, then google is your friend.


  • #374
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,054 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    JimiTime wrote: »
    And I'm fine with that. If someone is asserting that a mother is not important, then I'm not the one to ask to explain it. Similarly, if someone is asserting that fathers are not important, I'm not the the one to ask to explain it. My instinct would be to tell you to grow a brain. If the info is not within you already, then google is your friend.
    I googled. It told me parents were important. It told me attention was important. It told me a stable home-life was important. At no stage did it tell me that having one of each gender instead of two of the same gender was important. Can you post your basis for believing that it is?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #375
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I am. What a crock.

    Its the same argument used to oppose black kids being adopted by white parents, that these white parents won't be able to give the black kid the whole "experience" of being raised in a black family, and thus they will be out of touch with their culture.

    You can make this argument in opposition to practically any adoption since there will always be something "missing" in the adoption that would have been there in the natural parents had raised the child

    Jimi is correct that being raised by two men will mean that a child will not have the experience of being raised by a mother. That stands to reason.

    The question no one seems to be asking is does this matter. Is it going to adversely effect the child.

    All the evidence collected so far on children raised in such couples says no, it isn't. They have just the same odds of turning out emotionally stable and health (or not) as children raised by heterosexual couples.

    So just like the notion of a black child being raised by white parents, the question is then should we not do it because it makes observers uncomfortable, rather than because it is bad for the child (which it isn't).


  • #376
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    28064212 wrote: »
    I googled. It told me parents were important. It told me attention was important. It told me a stable home-life was important. At no stage did it tell me that having one of each gender instead of two of the same gender was important. Can you post your basis for believing that it is?

    A dictionary would be your friend too.
    par·ent
    noun \ˈpar-ənt, ˈper-\
    Definition of PARENT
    1 : one that begets or brings forth offspring
    2 : the material or source from which something is derived

    When it comes to begetting, or bringing forth offspring, one of each gender is pretty important. ;)


  • #377
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,054 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    PDN wrote: »
    A dictionary would be your friend too.


    When it comes to begetting, or bringing forth offspring, one of each gender is pretty important. ;)
    That's from Merriam-Webster's medical section. Their dictionary definition is somewhat more inclusive:
    1
    a : one that begets or brings forth offspring
    b : a person who brings up and cares for another
    2
    a : an animal or plant that is regarded in relation to its offspring
    b : the material or source from which something is derived
    c : a group from which another arises and to which it usually remains subsidiary <a parent company>

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #378
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    JimiTime wrote: »
    And I'm fine with that. If someone is asserting that a mother is not important, then I'm not the one to ask to explain it. Similarly, if someone is asserting that fathers are not important, I'm not the the one to ask to explain it. My instinct would be to tell you to grow a brain. If the info is not within you already, then google is your friend.
    You made a statement that only a woman and man can provide a child with the full spectrum of human emotion. I asked which emotions you were referring to, those that you felt were gender-specific. No reference to Mums or Dads on my part.

    It was very simple question. I am genuinely interested. I might have learned something, I might have found a gap in my knowledge, I might have been able to refine my opinion.

    But refusing to answer and then telling me to grow a brain (alongside the running commentary referring to clapping seals) is just...Well, I won't labour the point.


  • #379
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    A dictionary would be your friend too.


    When it comes to begetting, or bringing forth offspring, one of each gender is pretty important. ;)
    You're saying adoptive parents are misnamed? I'd like to see you say that to someone in real life.

    "You're not really parents, you know that, yeah?" :rolleyes:


  • #380
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You're saying adoptive parents are misnamed? I'd like to see you say that to someone in real life.

    "You're not really parents, you know that, yeah?" :rolleyes:

    Sadly, I have heard people say that.


  • #381
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I just did. Can you explain what you meant by altering or distorting their sexuality if you didn't mean turning them from heterosexuals into another sexuality, such as homosexuality? Because frankly Jimi that is the most obvious interpretation of what you said even if that wasn't what you meant (through frankly I'm at a loss as to what else you could have meant).

    The thread you dug things up from expand on my concerns.

    here

    here

    here

    here

    here


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You made a statement that only a woman and man can provide a child with the full spectrum of human emotion. I asked which emotions you were referring to, those that you felt were gender-specific. No reference to Mums or Dads on my part.

    Are men and women different emotionally?


  • #383
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You're saying adoptive parents are misnamed? I'd like to see you say that to someone in real life.

    "You're not really parents, you know that, yeah?" :rolleyes:

    Biologically, they aren't. I thought you might know that, being a doctor and all. ;)


  • #384
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    JimiTime wrote: »
    doctoremma wrote: »
    You made a statement that only a woman and man can provide a child with the full spectrum of human emotion. I asked which emotions you were referring to, those that you felt were gender-specific. No reference to Mums or Dads on my part.

    Are men and women different emotionally?
    No two people are identical emotionally, they are all different emotionally.


  • #385
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Are men and women different emotionally?

    Are there emotions men have that women cannot? or vice versa?

    But I think people are getting away from the point though. The original point was whether or not homosexual parents are better/worse/as good as heterosexual ones. I dont think anyone would deny that there are differences between a homosexual parent dynamic and a heterosexual one however what is impotent is do these differences make one dynamic intrinsically better at raising well adjusted healthy happy children than the other?


  • #386
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Are men and women different emotionally?

    People differ in their emotional responses. Since human being are not all physical and psychological identical clones how we deal with and express emotions varies from person to person.

    Tell me, JimiTime - do you and every man you know respond in exactly the same way to emotional stimulus?


  • #387
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    PDN wrote: »
    Biologically, they aren't. I thought you might know that, being a doctor and all. ;)

    I love how must insist with arguing just for the sake of it.

    Tell you what PDN, why don't you head on down and speak to the children of adoptive parents, or the actual parents and tell them their 'Not really their parents though' and see how that goes.

    A persons parents are those who raise, care for and take care of, a child. Biology just allows for the making of the child.

    That is unless, you don't consider Joseph to have been Jesus' parent?


  • #388
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    Biologically, they aren't. I thought you might know that, being a doctor and all. ;)

    You do love engaging in hair splitting semantics ;). You must be a nightmare when ordering food in a restuarant. 'When you say pan-fried' - what exactly do you mean by a pan. Is it made of cast iron in which case it would more properly called a skillet..?'

    Remind me - when we are discussing parenting in this thread was it clearly stated that the word parent was applicable only when we were referring to biological parents and if so can you direct me to this directive?


  • #389
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    Biologically, they aren't. I thought you might know that, being a doctor and all. ;)
    I'll repeat.

    You're saying adoptive parents are misnamed? I'd like to see you say that to someone in real life.

    "You're not really parents, you know that, yeah?" rolleyes.gif

    Is your desire to stick to a biological rather than layman's use of the word "parent" linked to your need to keep "marriage" with a strict definition? ;)


  • #390
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    Are there emotions men have that women cannot? or vice versa?

    But I think people are getting away from the point though. The original point was whether or not homosexual parents are better/worse/as good as heterosexual ones. I dont think anyone would deny that there are differences between a homosexual parent dynamic and a heterosexual one however what is impotent is do these differences make one dynamic intrinsically better at raising well adjusted healthy happy children than the other?

    It would be a foolish person who would assert that every heterosexual couple would make better adoptive parents than every homosexual couple. Therefore all couples, of whatever stripe, should be carefully vetted.

    I am all for homosexual couples that wish to adopt receiving equal scrutiny to heterosexual couples. I would be opposed to homosexual couples being treated unequally (either through requiring extra vetting, or through any kind of positive discrimination).

    Of course, all this applies to State adoption services. So long as voluntary adoption services are required to fill gaps in State services, then they should be free to operate according to their moral standards (ie a Jewish aoption service should be free to restrict their clients to observant Jews etc).


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    Are there emotions men have that women cannot? or vice versa?

    But I think people are getting away from the point though. The original point was whether or not homosexual parents are better/worse/as good as heterosexual ones. I dont think anyone would deny that there are differences between a homosexual parent dynamic and a heterosexual one however what is impotent is do these differences make one dynamic intrinsically better at raising well adjusted healthy happy children than the other?

    Yes - there does seem to be a distinct trend where some exponents of an anti-Gay marriage/lifestyle/existence stance resort to quibbling about the precise meaning of words rather then addressing the actual questions being put to them or providing a valid argument to support their stated position.

    I believe the technical term for this is mis-direction but no doubt I will be corrected and informed that mis-direction really means giving incorrect instruction as to how to find a particular location.

    I'm sure we all agree that every single word in existence has one meaning and one meaning alone....NOT.


Advertisement