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

philologos wrote: »

I'm confused as to what you've managed to fish out of my post to be honest with you. Some clarification would be very welcome.

There are two discussions going on here:
1) Whether or not homosexual acts are ethical
2) Whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalised.

I think civil partnership and marriage should be separate because they are fundamentally different in terms of the family structure they can offer. Mother, father child is different than mother mother child or father father child. Children who are raised with their biological parents fare best, and children are affected differently by both mothers and fathers. This makes me question whether or not a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father.

See back earlier in this thread for cited studies.

Long story short, I asked a question about people who use the Bible to oppose same sex civil marriage, PDN demanded proof that people in this thread stated that, and yours was one of the posts I referred to, because of this line:

"Jesus affirms that sexual immorality is wrong, as do the Apostles. So it is for that reason why by and large Christians hold to the idea that sexuality is to be kept within a marriage which is the union of a man and a woman Biblically."

I'm not specifically questioning your statement, by the way, just using it as one example, to address PDN's repeated insistence that I provide examples.

If I've misrepresented or misunderstood you, and the Bible doesn't play a part in your objection to civil marriage rights being extended to same sex couples, then I'm happy to stand corrected.

philologos wrote: »

Read the post - the context marienbad was arguing was whether the RCC should keep adoption in their religion. My answer is no.

Why she brought it up here? God only knows.

Please read the original post.

The redefinition of marriage isn't about equality it is about changing the meaning of the word. It's about changing marriage to be something completely different.

I brought it up Philologos as we are talking about gay marriage and adoption by gay partners.

But meaning of the word marriage has no agreed definition in the christian community.- do you accept that Philogos ?

So including one more catagory makes little difference. Then as now you will have marriage and christian marriage and the various christian groups
can decide what suits them best.

But the basic point is -there is no agreed definition of marriage in the wider christian community.

philologos wrote: »

Marriage and family go hand in hand.

It's funny because you're so incredibly wrong.

philologos wrote: »

Marriage and family go hand in hand. I think there should be recognition that a marriage - the union between a man and a woman is the only family structure that can provide a child a) with a biological mother or father, or b) with any mother or father at all. Admittedly, I'm not all that keen with experimentation with family structures in quite a number of ways not just in respect to this issue.

Formalising a relationship is a different topic, and if any two people are interested in formalising a relationship that should be their own business, even if I disagree ethically with homosexual acts as a Christian.

There are already gay couples with children. Be it from previous relationships, adoptions, or other means. Not allowing same sex couples the option of civil marriage does those families more harm than good. At present, even if the couple is part of a civil partnership, only one of them has a legal relationship with the child. If something happens to that parent, the child and the remaining parent have no legal relationship.

And yes, I'm sure we all hope that whatever decision the authorities make will mean that the child experiences the least disruption, especially if they are experiencing the loss of one of their parents. But he or she doesn't have the same guarantees and certainty that a child with legally married parents has.

And it isn't just me or the other pro-marriage equality posters saying this. The Ombudsman for Children highlighted this as well, in her advice to the Government on the then Bill - http://www.oco.ie/assets/files/publications/advice_to_government/Advice%20of%20Ombudsman%20for%20Children%20on%20Civil%20Partnership%20Bill%202009.pdf. For example:

While the Civil Partnership Bill 2009 addresses in significant detail the rights and obligations of civil partners and cohabitants in relation to each other, the Bill does not adequately address the rights and needs of children. It is clear that the situation of children was considered at length in the drafting of the Bill; it is unclear why that resulted in a Bill that did not prioritise the rights and interests of children. Although the situation of same-sex couples will be improved considerably by the enactment of the Civil Partnership Bill, the situation of children with same-sex parents will remain largely as it is at present.

It should be borne in mind that this is not a hypothetical problem. The omission of robust protections for the children of civil partners will have real consequences for the young people concerned and it is in their interests that the law reflect and provide for the reality of their lives. Current research being carried out in Ireland on the experience of young adult children with same-sex parents has indicated that there is a strong awareness among these young people of the lack of recognition of the reality of their family lives, and what that entails for them, their parents and their siblings. This lack of recognition and adequate legal protection is very keenly felt and a source of concern and frustration for them.

NuMarvel wrote: »

There are already gay couples with children. Be it from previous relationships, adoptions, or other means. Not allowing same sex couples the option of civil marriage does those families more harm than good. At present, even if the couple is part of a civil partnership, only one of them has a legal relationship with the child. If something happens to that parent, the child and the remaining parent have no legal relationship.

And yes, I'm sure we all hope that whatever decision the authorities make will mean that the child experiences the least disruption, especially if they are experiencing the loss of one of their parents. But he or she doesn't have the same guarantees and certainty that a child with legally married parents has.

And it isn't just me or the other pro-marriage equality posters saying this. The Ombudsman for Children highlighted this as well, in her advice to the Government on the then Bill - http://www.oco.ie/assets/files/publications/advice_to_government/Advice%20of%20Ombudsman%20for%20Children%20on%20Civil%20Partnership%20Bill%202009.pdf. For example:

Excellent post. Thank you for that NuMarvel.

I remember from my own experience I had to set up a complex (and expensive) legal guardianship/trust in the event of my death to ensure my son was able to remain with the woman he considered (and was in every sense of the word) his 'other' parent. Yet, had my family been so inclined they could have challenged my wishes and sought legal custody of him - and quite likely won even though he saw them only for a few weeks in the summer (we lived in the UK, my family lived in Ireland). So had I died, my son could have lost both his parents, been moved to a country he was unfamiliar with to live with people he didn't really know. His life would have been completely turned upside down and everything he was familiar with, from which he could have derived some measure of comfort and security, been taken from him in an instant.

Although I was sure neither my mother or siblings would do that, there was a serious risk my homophobic father would (an abusive alcoholic whose new found sobriety would have been looked kindly upon by the courts even as we knew he may not have been drinking any more but he was still just as much of an abusive bully as he had been when I was a child).

My OH could have lost not just her partner, but her son and her home as I had bought our house before (just) I met her and there was no means of having her legally recognised as my 'spouse' so she had security of residence. My house would have passed to my son - but as a minor his legal guardian would have had a great deal of power over what happened to it. It could well have been lost when a 'sure-fire' nag failed to win at Ascot.

It is insane that I had to spend several thousands of pounds trying to put in place a legal mechanism to prevent my son being taken from a parent who cherished him, chastised him when he needed it, sat through every school play, made his breakfast, lunch and dinner, washed and ironed his clothes, did his homework with him, kissed his boo-boos better, read him bed time stories and took him on nature rambles where she shared the extensive knowledge of the natural world her parents had taught her. Yet, there was no guarantee that this would work. My son could have been handed over to his abusive grandfather had this awful man sought custody in the courts. The thought gave me more then a few sleepless nights and I made my mother and siblings promise to everything in their power to support my OH should the need arise. My (straight) brother vowed to pay her legal fees.

Other's were not so fortunate with their families or did not have the resources at my disposal to set up such a complex legal document. Or did only to find it over turned by the courts who were legally bound to act within the confines of the law at the time.

Then there were the everyday difficulties - my OH couldn't sign a permission note for school, give permission for medical treatment or do many of the things legally recognised parents do without even thinking about it.
When my son was aged 5-9 for financial reasons I worked in a different city to the one 'we' lived in so I had a flat I stayed in from Mon-Thurs and went home for the weekend. My salary was excellent so my OH did not need to work and was essentially a stay at home parent - but a parent who was legally a stranger to her son.

A good friend of mine had two children with her partner of 5 years. Even though my friend was not biologically related to the children her surname was their surname on their birthcerts (at her partner's insistence I hasten to add). When the children were 5 and 7 years old, her partner - after a relationship of over 10 years - decided she wasn't a lesbian. Met and married a man and they began legal proceeding for him to adopt the children. My friend fought this all the way to the Old Bailey (this happened in the UK). She could afford to do this only because she is a barrister. She lost. The children who bore her surname, the children who she had been there for since the moment of conception were now legally the children of a man who had first met them a year before. She has not seen them in 6 years but pays maintenance into their mother's bank account every week. Not because she is legally obliged to but because she believes it is the right thing to do. She is now waiting and hoping that soon the eldest will create a FB account so she might get a chance to see what they look like. She was on the phone to me in tears last week as it was the date of her son's Bar Mitzvah - she obviously was not invited (or even informed it was happening - she is allowed no contact with them) unlike his gentile legal father. How can that be either just or in the best interests of the children?

Even when children are not involved the lack of legal recognition (before any kind of civil partnership came into force) was the cause of cruel and unnecessary heart ache for many lesbians and Gay men.

I have known surviving partners who lost their homes when the legal next of kin (i.e the legal heir) evicted them from the home they had shared with their partners.

Or surviving partners who had to sell their home to pay huge tax bills because as legal strangers there was no allowance made for their wishy-washy status as life partners for tax purposes.

I have seen men die whose blood relations denied them the comfort of their life partner being present.

It's all very well and good to argue hypotheticals and semantics but that is to loose sight of the fact that we are talking about real human being who just want the same legal security and recognition that is granted to heterosexuals.

I apologise for the length of this post - as I was writing it the fear and insecurity I felt all those years ago about what would happen to my son if I died came flooding back. Mine is the human face of the repercussions of inequality. I have chosen to show that face. It is up to you, the reader, how you will react.

philologos wrote: »

However, the Government should distinguish between unions that give a child a mother and a father, and ones which can't.

Says you but as pointed out many times to you before there is no basis for this claim. Nor have you provided any. There is nothing actually required for the successful and healthy upbringing of a child that is somehow the purview of one parental configuration over another.

You are just making this up and you ignore this point every time in favour of repeating your mantra that one man and one woman is somehow the "ideal". Yet a world punctuated by children brought up by single parents and gay parents and even other configurations belie your false notions.

But I guess as long as you keep typing on a forum and ignore the real world outside your window you can keep telling yourself this is true. Reality need not get in the way of a good mantra.