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

marienbad wrote: »

Are you going to respond to oldernwiser's post or not ? the phrase ''put up or shut up '' comes to mind

I'll do so when I get enough time to go through it.

And I'll post as I please. If you think I'm violating the charter report my post to PDN and Plowman and they'll sort me out.

wonderfulname

philologos wrote: »

I'm simply saying a union between a man and a woman differs to a homosexual relationship.

You're not doing a very good job of illustrating that, but even if you could, how would that support your position? Why would difference support the denial of equal statute?

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: As I've just said I'm going to keep bringing up gender role models in respect to this debate, because it's relevant. Not answering a post as you like, is not the same thing as not answering it at all.

You can bring it up all you like, but the fact you are ignoring the points we've brought against it makes you dishonest.

I asked you two direct questions about your research but you ignored them.
Your research does not directly support your conclusion. You conclusion was reached solely by you and your uniformed, biased opinion.

It does not logically follow that because men and women have certain benefits in roles does not mean that those benefits are not replaced or filled in same sex parents. Your research does not either test this, or conclude otherwise.
As such it does not support you stance, and if you do not address these points every time you bring up that research as if it did, you are more or less lying.

And again, you've avoided more direct simple questions.
I asked you to specify which benefits same sex couples should not have that straight couples did. You did not answer this despite how central it is to your point.
I also asked you if mixed race couples are different, you did not answer this question because I think it will show you point to be hypocritical.
Either point out where you've answer these points or answer them now.

The problem with claiming you've addressed points you haven't phil, is that we can see what we've all wrote.

Don't bring up new points when there is a ton of others you are ignoring. If you have time to find and discuss this new article you have time to address the post that oldswinr put so much effort and research into.

If the research shows that a man and a woman benefit their children differently:

Then how is that compatible with the idea that there's no difference whatsoever?

The former, contradicts the latter. How can both be true if they flat out contradict each other?

That's my point. This is the point that you've not addressed. You've not given a clear answer to that any time that I've brought that much up. Instead you've said it's not a study about same-sex parenting, I agree it's not, but it has real implications for this debate.

philologos wrote: »

If the research shows that a man and a woman benefit their children differently:

Then how is that compatible with the idea that there's no difference whatsoever?

The former, contradicts the latter. How can both be true if they flat out contradict each other?

Because again, as clear as I can make it: the study does not say that replacing one parent with the other gender is less beneficial or more detrimental.
The study does not test this therefore you cannot use it to conclude that.
Nor is it logical to assume that's the case when the research cannot conclude that.

philologos wrote: »

That's my point. This is the point that you've not addressed. You've not given a clear answer to that any time that I've brought that much up. Instead you've said it's not a study about same-sex parenting, I agree it's not, but it has real implications for this debate.

I've repeatedly addressed it in practically every post I've made here. Again, it's hard to lie about this stuff when we have a record of what he post. So I recommend you stop doing that.

And again, you've missed the questions I've asked you.

What specific benefits should straight couples get that gay ones shouldn't.
And are mixed race couples the same as same race ones or are they different? Should we treat them as different if they are? If they are not different, what makes gay couples different?

You've not answered the question. How are both compatible?

I'm starting to think that we're talking past one another, and I'm starting to think this is getting pointless.

philologos wrote: »

I'm simply saying a union between a man and a woman differs to a homosexual relationship.

Seems to me you are saying a union between a man and a woman is better then a homosexual relationship.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I'll do so when I get enough time to go through it.

And I'll post as I please. If you think I'm violating the charter report my post to PDN and Plowman and they'll sort me out.

Well if it is time you require , I think the 2nd coming will happen first.

I am out of this section of the discussion as you just have no credibility

philologos wrote: »

You've not answered the question. How are both compatible?

I have. Just because men and women provide unique benefits (which none of us are buying for a second btw) it does not imply nor is it concluded in the paper that both are required for a successful or equally beneficial effect.

Does it specifically say in the paper that lacking a gender in a couple is less beneficial? Yes or no?

philologos wrote: »

I'm starting to think that we're talking past one another, and I'm starting to think this is getting pointless.

No, it's only because you are refusing to address points you find too hard or will expose the flaws in your logic.

For example the last two you;'ve dodged.
I think you don't actually know which benefits should only be extended to straigh couples, making you point about treating gay couples differently silly. Or perhaps you believe that they should recieve the same benefits which makes it no different to marriage.
And further you know that mixed race couples are different to same raced ones, and you know there's no valid reason to treat them differently.

But providing the honest answers would invalidate you point, hence you ignore them.

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

NuMarvel: I'm sure you know as well as I do that family structure is not like a game of football.

The analogy is sound. A game of football doesn't morph into something else because of the gender of the participants. Does it become a different game? Sure. But that doesn't make it any the lesser.

Similarly, a family doesn't stop becoming a family because the parents are of the same gender. And the word family is important here. The Irish Constitution says that the family is founded on marriage. No marriage = no family. Are you saying that Bannasidhe's son should be denied the right to be part of a legally recognised family? Especially after her excellent post last night?

philologos wrote: »

Oh, and the studies are about child development and gender, so it's not talking about LGBT unions. However, if their conclusions are true, it has consequence for this debate. That's why they shouldn't be ignored, and I'm going to keep bringing them up until I hear a half good reason as to why they don't have any bearing.

The key word here is IF. You have not shown the conclusion are true, just why you think they are. And oldnwsr seems to have put forward some very good reasons as to why they're not.

And respectfully, it is hard for you to hear a half good reason as to why they don't have a bearing, when you keep ignoring the people who put forward reasons. Please, read oldnwsr's post. If you find flaws, then raise them. If you need clarification, then ask. If you disagree, say why.

But don't ignore them. If nothing else, it's impolite to keep bringing up your studies without reference to the arguments that have been set out against them. Particularly when you know they're there, but then say they're not.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe this is an issue of equality (All people can get married, marriage is a union between a man and a woman). It's about changing marriage. Civil partnership is sufficient in terms of formalising a relationship.

Once again you are missing the point. If I have the right to marry the person I love, shouldn't everyone have that right? To deny people that right, or any right, based on that persons sexual orientation is discrimination. Therefore, this is an issue of equality. It's easy to say that civil partnership is sufficient when you're not the one being discriminated against.

As for your claim that all people can marry, that's a cop out and you know it. Yes, a homosexual man can marry a woman. But he wouldn't love her. He couldn't give her children. He wouldn't be happy with her. Wouldn't that be something which goes against marriage rather than something which celebrates it?

Couple A: Can't biologically have children. Don't want to have children anyway and don't want to adopt. Want to get married in a non-religious ceremony to celebrate their love and commitment to each other. Not to "formalise their relationship" or "get legal benefits", but just as an expression of love.
Couple B: Can't biologically have children. Don't want to have children anyway and don't want to adopt. Want to get married in a non-religious ceremony to celebrate their love and commitment to each other. Not to "formalise their relationship" or "get legal benefits", but just as an expression of love.

What's the difference between Couples A & B? One is a same-sex couple, the other is male and female. Based on the details I gave, you can't even tell which is which. Yet one can't get married simply because they're same-sex. Not an issue of equality?

Equality is the issue. Of that there is no doubt.

I honestly don't know how you can justify such mental gymnastics on that question.

I think that marriage should receive preference when it comes to adoption. That's the major difference. The reason I support different recognition for marriage is because I think a marriage is a different family structure to a homosexual relationship, and to a cohabiting couple, or a single parent.

The race argument is absurd. It shows how desperate people are to lump people who have objections to redefining marriage to racists. Race doesn't change family structure because it doesn't leave a child without a mum or a dad. Also, race is biologically determined, there's no evidence at present to show that sexuality is biologically hardwired into individuals. I've already answered that question earlier in the thread.

Penn wrote: »

Couple A: Can't biologically have children. Don't want to have children anyway and don't want to adopt. Want to get married in a non-religious ceremony to celebrate their love and commitment to each other. Not to "formalise their relationship" or "get legal benefits", but just as an expression of love.
Couple B: Can't biologically have children. Don't want to have children anyway and don't want to adopt. Want to get married in a non-religious ceremony to celebrate their love and commitment to each other. Not to "formalise their relationship" or "get legal benefits", but just as an expression of love.

You're missing the point still.

In the Irish Constitution, and in most other legal constitutions across the world marriage is the foundation of the family. Family will always be discussed. All possibilities and consequences of marriage need to be discussed though.

Just because people might not want to get married, there are still questions surrounding family.

I've already told you cleanly that I don't have any issue with people deciding to formalise their relationships.

philologos - correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall you saying that you are single.

philologos wrote: »

I honestly don't know how you can justify such mental gymnastics on that question.

Really? But you're such a pro at them.

Like ho you justify dodging all of these points you can't address.

Just because men and women provide unique benefits (which none of us are buying for a second btw) it does not imply nor is it concluded in the paper that both are required for a successful or equally beneficial effect.

Does it specifically say in the paper that lacking a gender in a couple is less beneficial? Yes or no?

philologos wrote: »

I think that marriage should receive preference when it comes to adoption. That's the major difference. The reason I support different recognition for marriage is because I think a marriage is a different family structure to a homosexual relationship, and to a cohabiting couple, or a single parent.

So again, what benefits should gay civil partners not get that straight ones do?

And why do you keep insisting that children are an issue when 1) you've been forced to admit that gay adoptive parents are just as capable as straight ones. 2) you've been offered examples of families for which children aren't an issue but you have no issue with them marrying.
It's almost like you're ignoring the points you've conceded.

philologos wrote: »

The race argument is absurd. It shows how desperate people are to lump people who have objections to redefining marriage to racists. Race doesn't change family structure because it doesn't leave a child without a mum or a dad. Also, race is biologically determined, there's no evidence at present to show that sexuality is biologically hardwired into individuals. I've already answered that question earlier in the thread.

Again, more points you're repeating as if they haven't been debunked, and still you refuse to answer the simple question put to you.

Is a mixed race couple the exact same as a same race couple? Yes or no?

King Mob wrote: »

Just because men and women provide unique benefits (which none of us are buying for a second btw) it does not imply nor is it concluded in the paper that both are required for a successful or equally beneficial effect.

Even when the papers show that they provide unique benefits?

King Mob wrote: »

Does it specifically say in the paper that lacking a gender in a couple is less beneficial? Yes or no?

If a mother provides unique benefit to her child, and a father provides unique benefit to his child. Then to say there's no difference is saying that a mother and a father do not have any unique benefit on their children. Both cannot be true.

That's basic logic.

King Mob wrote: »

So again, what benefits should gay civil partners not get that straight ones do?

I've told you already.

King Mob wrote: »

And why do you keep insisting that children are an issue when 1) you've been forced to admit that gay adoptive parents are just as capable as straight ones. 2) you've been offered examples of families for which children aren't an issue but you have no issue with them marrying.
It's almost like you're ignoring the points you've conceded.

I've said that most people raised in same-sex environments come out fine, but it is best for a child to be raised with their biological parents, and if not that with a mother and a father via adoption.

I've explained that that does not solely lie with this issue. I believe strongly that biological families should be kept together as much as possible, and it's regrettable that liberal perspectives on sexuality have logically concluded with many kids left outside of a stable marriage between their biological parents.

There's one obvious advantage to the biological family, that is that bloodlines are kept together. I.E - There's a significantly lessened risk that one would enter into a relationship with their sibling, or close relative. In the absence of this, situations like these can arise and will arise.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, more points you're repeating as if they haven't been debunked, and still you refuse to answer the simple question put to you.

I don't believe they have been.

King Mob wrote: »

Is a mixed race couple the exact same as a same race couple? Yes or no?

They look different, and may be culturally different but apart from that in respect to family structure no

Penn

philologos wrote: »

You're missing the point still.

In the Irish Constitution, and in most other legal constitutions across the world marriage is the foundation of the family. Family will always be discussed. All possibilities and consequences of marriage need to be discussed though.

Just because people might not want to get married, there are still questions surrounding family.

I've already told you cleanly that I don't have any issue with people deciding to formalise their relationships.

Are a husband and wife not "family"? Again, some people who get married can't have or don't want children. Are they not family? Any questions surrounding family go out the window with the realisation that same sex couples can not have children, much like an infertile male/female couple can not have children.

And again, as for "formalising their relationship", is that why people get married?

oldrnwisr: I've given your post a read. I'm going to look through the Proposition 8 document if I can find it, and if you're right about what you've said I won't use the New Family Structures Study, or the one which looks at the APA reports.

Penn wrote: »

Are a husband and wife not "family"? Again, some people who get married can't have or don't want children. Are they not family? Any questions surrounding family go out the window with the realisation that same sex couples can not have children, much like an infertile male/female couple can not have children.

And again, as for "formalising their relationship", is that why people get married?

Your missing the point - if marriage is going to be redefined the impact of this in respect to family structures also needs to be considered because the Constitution in the case of Ireland, and other legal precedents in other countries regard marriage as the foundation of the family. If you changed the law without consideration for family, that'd be a sloppy job of legislation. Legislation needs to consider every single possibility.

I can't ignore family.

philologos - can you confirm that you are neither married or have children.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

philologos - can you confirm that you are neither married or have children.

I believe in marriage and I value it highly. I know the advantages of a strong and stable marriage, and I advocate the roles of mums and dads in respect to their kids.

I'm single yes. I can still have an opinion on this issue.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Similarly, a family doesn't stop becoming a family because the parents are of the same gender. And the word family is important here. The Irish Constitution says that the family is founded on marriage. No marriage = no family. Are you saying that Bannasidhe's son should be denied the right to be part of a legally recognised family? Especially after her excellent post last night?

In short: No, I don't think her son should be denied that right. I think the State should provide support for the children of civil partners, as well as for single parents, but there should be a recognition that marriage is the only family structure that can provide children with a mother and a father. I think it should be the same as it is in UK law at the moment. I don't think people should be penalised for disagreeing with what I believe, and I don't think people should be forced to live by Christian values, but I don't believe that redefining marriage is the right way to go about this.

philologos wrote: »

Even when the papers show that they provide unique benefits?

If a mother provides unique benefit to her child, and a father provides unique benefit to his child. Then to say there's no difference is saying that a mother and a father do not have any unique benefit on their children. Both cannot be true.

That's basic logic.

But it's not basic logic, which we already know you have trouble with.
Does the study specifically address the point or provide and answer about whether or not both genders are required to raise a child?? Yes or no?
Does it specifically say that both genders are needed to provide the same benefits that a child has with a straight couple. Yes or no?
Does it say anything about children who have same sex parents? Yes or no?

And since the honest answer to these is no, you cannot reach the conclusion you have reached. but since they are the honest answers you will not give them.

philologos wrote: »

I've told you already.

No you haven't. Point out where. Or list specifically what benefits straight couples should have access to over gay ones.

If you are referring to were you said that they should be less preferable for adoption, then you've wandered into a hilarious loop of logic. And further raises the question what the difference actually is that requires it to be distinct from marriage.

philologos wrote: »

I've said that most people raised in same-sex environments come out fine, but it is best for a child to be raised with their biological parents, and if not that with a mother and a father via adoption.

But you have not show anything to support the idea that gay adoptive parents are less preferable.
And since you've admitted they come out find, you don't have a leg to stand on to make that distinction.

philologos wrote: »

I've explained that that does not solely lie with this issue. I believe strongly that biological families should be kept together as much as possible, and it's regrettable that liberal perspectives on sexuality have logically concluded with many kids left outside of a stable marriage between their biological parents.

There's one obvious advantage to the biological family, that is that bloodlines are kept together. I.E - There's a significantly lessened risk that one would enter into a relationship with their sibling, or close relative. In the absence of this, situations like these can arise and will arise.

all silly archaic arguments against adoption not gay adoption over straight adoption. The distinction is arbitrary.

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe they have been.

One of the benefits of ignoring points you don't like I suppose.

philologos wrote: »

They look different, and may be culturally different but apart from that in respect to family structure no

So since they are different, should we treat them differently?

philologos wrote: »

I believe in marriage and I value it highly. I know the advantages of a strong and stable marriage, and I advocate the roles of mums and dads in respect to their kids.

I'm single yes. I can still have an opinion on this issue.

Yes, of course you are entitled to an opinion. But I am sure that you will understand that I find the fact that you are stating that my relationship with my OH (whom I am not allowed to marry) and our parenting skills are somehow lesser then heterosexuals when all you have to base this view on is a book which is thousands of years old, some studies which are questionable - or what you have drawn from them is questionable - and your own experiences as a child of heterosexual married parents - I am assuming your parent's were married heterosexuals - a bit rich to say the least.

King Mob wrote: »

all silly archaic arguments against adoption not gay adoption over straight adoption. The distinction is arbitrary.

I don't think it's archaic it's relevant to our decade and our time as much as any other.

I'm not opposed to adoption but I'd be lying if I didn't believe that it's an unfortunate necessity that the biological family isn't stronger in the West and that it has been undermined in the last few decades.

Oh and on race, appearance and culture don't change family structure, so no they shouldn't be treated differently.

Bannasidhe: I don't think it is based on nothing other than the Bible, but it is evident that Christians are going to come to disagreements on this issue. The question is how are we going to deal with these disagreements, are we going to agree to disagree and show each other the grace that is deserved, or are we going to get hostile over it. For as long as Christians stand up for what they believe is right, there is going to be disagreements.

It's not that I believe LGBT parents can't be excellent parents, it's that I don't believe that you can replace a father with a woman, and a mother with a father.

So since you've avoided the points I made it's clear you can't address them.
You realise that you study does not support your stance because it can't support your stance.

But even though you know you can't address my points you're still going to using that study as if I never made them. That seem honest to you?

philologos wrote: »

I don't think it's archaic it's relevant to our decade and our time as much as any other.

Unfortunately, it is. Kinda happens when you base you views of archaic beliefs.

philologos wrote: »

I'm not opposed to adoption but I'd be lying if I didn't believe that it's an unfortunate necessity that the biological family isn't stronger in the West and that it has been undermined in the last few decades.

That's great, but none of your silly arguments support a distinction between straight and gay. So why are straight couples preferable?

philologos wrote: »

Oh and on race, appearance and culture don't change family structure, so no they shouldn't be treated differently.

But they are different, so your logic requires that they be treated differently.
And what about hetero couples that have different family structures? Such as perhaps a family that lives with it's grandparents? Should they be treated differently?

And what exactly should this different treatment entail. You ignored that question as well.
Shall I assume that you in fact believe that gay civil unions should have the exact same benefits (aside from your illogical objections to children)?
If this is the case, why is it not a marriage?

I've avoided points that will bring us in circles because I've already answered them

I didn't ignore the question about how they should be regarded differently, I gave you an answer concerning adoption a few posts ago.

philologos wrote: »

I've avoided points that will bring us in circles because I've already answered them

They bring us in circles because you refuse to address points.
I asked you several direct yes or no questions, either answer them or admit you can't. Otherwise you're ignoring the question.

Does your study specifically conclude that both genders are required to effectively raise a child? Yes or no?
Does your study specifically conclude that having both genders is more beneficial than only having one? Yes or no?

philologos wrote: »

I didn't ignore the question about how they should be regarded differently, I gave you an answer concerning adoption a few posts ago.

Point out where cause I do not see where you've addressed this question.
or just restate it.

Or again, if you are referring to the idea that straight couples should be given preference, please either address the follow up questions about it or admit you can't.

Answering my posts instead of ignoring them will actually move the discussion forward.

oldrnwisr

philologos wrote: »

oldrnwisr: I've given your post a read. I'm going to look through the Proposition 8 document if I can find it, and if you're right about what you've said I won't use the New Family Structures Study, or the one which looks at the APA reports.

Yes, apologies for that I should have included the references in my previous post.

Press release from American Foundation for Equal Rights

Plaintiff Motion to Exclude the expert report and testimony of Katherine Young, Loren Marks and David Blankenhorn

There are some interesting points raised in the plaintiff motion including:

"Moreover, in his deposition, Dr. Marks withdrew his claim that genetic parent-child relationships are important to child outcomes and noted that he knows of no empirical research that identifies biology as the cause of good outcomes for children."

"Not only does Dr. Marks fail to offer any analysis or insight into any of the studies he quoted, but he admits that he did not even completely read the studies cited in his report."

"At the time of Dr. Marks’ deposition, Dr. Marks could only name two studies, one from 1996 and one from 2004, that compared different family structures, including same-sex parents."

Oh, and one final comment on the Marks/Regnerus studies. The fact that Marks cites the Regnerus study in his paper despite being published simultaneously should set off all sorts of alarm bells.

philologos wrote: »

Your missing the point - if marriage is going to be redefined the impact of this in respect to family structures also needs to be considered because the Constitution in the case of Ireland, and other legal precedents in other countries regard marriage as the foundation of the family. If you changed the law without consideration for family, that'd be a sloppy job of legislation. Legislation needs to consider every single possibility.

I can't ignore family.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, the constitution offers a pledge to protect marriage (upon which the family is founded) from special attack. The first problem is that the constitution defines neither marriage nor family, nor did any legislation until the Civil Registration Act in 2004, relying instead on legal precedent for a working definition. The impending referendum, however it may be worded, will be about setting a definition for marriage and family, not redefining it, since there is no existing constitutional definition to redefine. What is being considered is an added level of specificity to shore up flaws in the constitution.
Secondly, I don't see how anyone could legitimately exclude a same-sex couple raising children from any valid definition of family. If that is the case then attempting to maintain a different definition of marriage is really just an argument from special pleading.
Finally, legal benefits extended to cohabiting couples and single parents are what really constitute an attack on marriage per the relevant article, so if you were consistent in your arguments you should be more concerned with enacting legislation to combat those rather than worrying about a possible constitutional change.

As I stated previously, I will deal with your other studies when I have a bigger block of time tomorrow.

philologos wrote: »

In short: No, I don't think her son should be denied that right. I think the State should provide support for the children of civil partners, as well as for single parents, but there should be a recognition that marriage is the only family structure that can provide children with a mother and a father. I think it should be the same as it is in UK law at the moment. I don't think people should be penalised for disagreeing with what I believe, and I don't think people should be forced to live by Christian values, but I don't believe that redefining marriage is the right way to go about this.

Yet, the reality is my son was denied that right and a great part of the reasoning behind this denial was Christian values were deemed to take precedence over civil equalities.

In Ireland, Christian Values are still being allowed to dominate debate on what is a civil issue. I have an issue with that.

To me insisting that the State declares that the Christian definition of the word 'marriage' is the only permissible one is not a million miles from stating that the State should also declare that the word 'citizen' should apply only to Roman Catholics (on the grounds that 83% ticked the Roman Catholic box on the census) - all non-Roman Catholics to be called 'legal residents' or some such thing. They would have the same rights and responsibilities but not be allowed to call themselves 'citizens'.
I would argue equally vociferously argue against such a move as I think religion has no place in civil legislation or definitions and Christians of other denominations, members of non-Christian religion and those with none should be seen to be equal in the eyes of the State.

Good morning all.

I'm going to post here, because I think you all deserve an apology. I'm sorry for getting so frustrated in respect to this argument yesterday, and I'm sorry for being rash in respect to many of your posts.

Perhaps this thread is simply another sign that I can be as human as anyone else, and I can mess up like anyone else, and I hope you can forgive me.

I believe very strongly in marriage, and I think it is worthy of defence, but I believe that I lacked the grace and respect that the Bible demands of me as a Christian in this discussion, and it is for that reason that I would like to apologise to you all this morning.

Here's the passage from 1 Peter that I'm thinking of:

1 Peter 3:15-16 wrote:

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

I'm sorry because I didn't show you all the gentleness and respect that you deserve in this discussion.

Thanks for your patience and understanding with me,
philologos

Sonics2k

Tell us Phil,

What exactly do you think will happen?

Plenty of countries and states in the US (and this number is increasing) have legalized same-sex marriage, allowed full rights for homosexuals, and life has gone on as normal.

Nothing at all has changed.

So what exactly do you think will happen to heterosexual relationships?