Iona vs Panti

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Let me be very clear on this. Nobody has right to be given a child by the state just because they want one. The child's welfare is always the priority. This is separate from a consenting man and a consenting woman creating life and raising it. No state has the right to interfere in this natural process until the child's welfare becomes an issue. The priority is still the child's welfare.


Please understand that I never said that gay adoption should be barred. I said that the world outside this bubble is likely to treat the child differently and this creates a moral dilemma for me, but not to the point where banning gay adoption is the solution. The children are going to have to take the brunt of it until it becomes normalised in our society. How can you see this as a slur against gays when it is being critical of non-gays and their treatment of homosexuals?

And let me be clear - no one is saying just hand the baby over to that just married gay couple this instant or 'homophobe'. No One. Not one single person.

We are saying apply the same criteria to both heterosexual and homosexual couples because guess what - gay people can and already do legally adopt. There is no legal impediment for a gay person to adopt.

Notice my use of the singular?

A gay individual can adopt. A Gay couple cannot adopt as a couple.
A heterosexual individual can adopt. A heterosexual couple can adopt as a couple if they are married.

Gay people cannot get married therefore they cannot adopt as a couple.

That is the issue. Not whether or not gay people 'should' be able to adopt children - they all ready can and do but - no matter the status of a gay couple's relationship - even if they are civil partnershipped - legally the child will have only one parent when in reality they may have two.

Adoption by gay people has long moved beyond the realms of 'social experiment' and into the real world.

What about a couple where only one is the biological parent?

Can their partner adopt the child. Yes - if they are married.

Civilpartnershipped - no. That child is legally the child of a single parent and will remain so.

That is discrimination based on gay relationships being seen as 'lesser' even when the State itself has legally recognised that relationship.

As for 'The priority is still the child's welfare' what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Do you have any idea how offensive the implications of that statement are?

Do you think married gay couples will be queuing up demanding a wee baby as an accessory just because they can and it would be soooooo cute?

Oh 'consenting' man and 'consenting' woman get a free pass cos 'biology' and different/different daddy/mammy but we have to watch 'the gays' because...why exactly?? Oh..because it's not 'normal' yet.

Many many years ago children of mixed race parents were rare in Europe. Not that long ago it was rare in Ireland. A friend of mine used to joke that if a letter was addressed to her as 'Black ******, Limerick' she would get it. Should her mother not have had her as the existence of mixed race children was not 'normalised' in Ireland? Should she in turn not have had her mixed race children even though there were a few other such children scattered around the country already but not enough to be 'normal' yet.

How can it become 'Normal' if we refuse to accept it exists?
How much more 'normal' can you get than recognition by the State itself?

Why it is a slur? It is a slur because no one questions the fitness of any other minority to be parents based only on their membership of that minority. Yet, there is not one single thread on equality for gay people where 'won't somebody think of the children' isn't brought up. It is the ultimate strawman.

Children have zero to go with gay people being treated equally by the State unless those children are gay or the children of gay parents in which case it directly impacts on their lives. Yet time and time again the topic of children is introduced into the discussion and the latest example I saw of this was you.

We are thinking of our children. We are thinking they should have the same rights as the children of heterosexuals - they should have, where applicable, legal recognition of both their parents.

Not all the children of heterosexuals have two legally recognised parents but the legal mechanisms exist for this to be changed.

NO Child of gay parents* has two legally recognised parents and as it currently stands never will.

My son is about to turn 30 - he is still legally the son of a 'single' mother. Yet he had two parents his entire life. My nephew is 31 - he has two legal parents. His legally recognised father first met him when he was 10 years old but thanks to being able to get married his 'father' was also able to adopt his wife's son.

Why was my son denied two parents but my nephew was entitled?
Oh, but my son could have had two parents if I married a man. Any man at all. A syphilitic abusive junkie I found on a park bench would have done.

Now, once again I ask you to leave children out of this discussion.

This is about whether all citizens of the State are equal or not. Or whether some citizens should be treated just a bit differently because other citizens don't approve of them.

Iona thinks gay people should be treated just that bit differently. To have a few lesser legal protections than heterosexuals. They claim it is about what is best for children - is it not best for the children of two people in a legally recognised life partnership to have two legally recognised parents?
Not according to Iona. They want the children of gays to remain the children of single parents even when in reality they are not.















* Child born to/adopted by a gay couple as opposed to children born in a previous heterosexual relationship but now have one parent(or both ) in a gay relationship.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you like forests you should come to Sweden. Feck all else here though.

Sonofmine loves Sweden. Went Ice Wall climbing there. Best thing ever happened him as to be honest before he climbed that wall he was a bit of a pain in the arse. Came down a nice guy...


we have forbidden him to return to Sweden in case that A'Hole who climbed the ice wall re-inhabits him...:eek: