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

Full rights for the LGBT community.

Options
1…5758596062

Comments

  • Options
    #1832
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    conorh91 wrote: »
    wtf:confused: Why are you calling them 'prods'? All agencies, and all parents regardless of creed, have the right to prefer an ethos which accords with their own ethos, where possible.


    And screw the rights of the children .


  • Options
    #1833
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    marienbad wrote: »
    And screw the rights of the children .
    No matter how reasoned I try to be, you are just going to ignore the point, and insert melodramatic quips, aren't you?

    No, not without reference to the child's rights. Nobody is here to defend forced adoptions or child abuse. Enough with the theatrics.

    This is exactly the sort of black-and-white debate I was referencing earlier. Most people are not interested in building a consensus. They'd much rather this divisive, historically-blind, absolutist approach to history.


  • Options
    #1834
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    xrp- this is not a forum where you can make any random assertion you like. Please read the charter and as this is a sensitive topic here is a good guideline:

    Reasons why [insert proposal re: LGBT rights] is/is not a good thing for society is a valid argument for this thread.

    Reasons why LGBT people are [insert invective] is not a valid argument for this thread.
    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Oh god no, shure that's [shriek]ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY!11!![/shriek]

    This is not the cafe, so please tone down the rhetoric


  • Options
    #1835
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    conorh91 wrote: »
    No matter how reasoned I try to be, you are just going to ignore the point, and insert melodramatic quips, aren't you?

    No, not without reference to the child's rights. Nobody is here to defend forced adoptions or child abuse. Enough with the theatrics.

    This is exactly the sort of black-and-white debate I was referencing earlier. Most people are not interested in building a consensus. They'd much rather this divisive, historically-blind, absolutist approach to history.

    No , some issues are not black and white and you do not build a consensus with them. none of this is theatrics , are you unaware of the complete gulag system that was run in country for over 50 years ?

    The same mindset that could not see that a child in a protestant home was better off than a child in a Magdelene home is now being deployed to argue against gay adoption .

    Just because you have one bishop sounding reasonable does not change this fundamental fact , If you want consensus try working on the Iona crowd who recently heckled this same cleric for not being more aggressive .


  • Options
    #1836
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,557 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Conorh91: This is from the article link you provided. In it, Archbishop Martin has equated the conscience rights of religious solemnizers and state employees when it comes to the "will I or won't I" question about officiating at a same-sex marriage. My IMO response is below the Archbishop's opinion.

    Archibishop Martin responding to a question from Dr John Murray of the Iona Institute on the issue of conscience.

    ‘Conscientious question’

    The archbishop said there was also “inconsistency”, as, “for example, somebody said religious solemnisers won’t be forced to celebrate gay marriages. What does that say? It’s saying . . . there is a conscientious question and we respect the conscience of religious solemnisers, mainly priests.

    “What about a Christian in civil society, a lay Christian who has the same difficulties? Does he have freedom of conscience? Or is his freedom of conscience different to mine as a priest? I don’t believe that.

    “Now people will say ok, if you are paid by the State you will do what the State tells you. That isn’t, in the long term, what even democracy is about. I do believe we have to stress that.

    “[On] the other side, we have to respect the freedom of expression of others who may disagree with us, but I think this question of freedom of conscience is being pushed aside in debate and we’re getting very superficial answers about the way it is being addressed in our society and I believe that’s a much more serious problem.”

    1. It is well known (and hopefully understood) that religious solemnizers will not be required by law to solemnize same sex
    marriages as they are state marriages, not religious marriages, should the referendum pass.

    2. I believe the Archbishop is being disingenuous when he equates the religious solemnizer exempted by state law in recognition of
    his status as a religious personage (delineating the difference between religious and state marriages) and the state employee
    required by state law to solemnize at state marriages. He say's it is about freedom of conscience and developing a sensitivity as
    to what that mean's.

    3. To me there is a clear hint from the Archbishop to state solemnizers of state marriages "you have a freedom of conscience and
    it allow's you to say NO when it comes to performing your state job, as you are doing the same job as a religious solemnizer".
    Not alone is the hint aimed at Roman Catholic state employees, but by using the term "religious solemnizers" he is including the
    followers of other faiths/beliefs in his hint about freedom of conscience.

    4. I strongly suspect that the question from Dr Murray to Archbishop Martin was pre-planned, as was the carefully worded reply.

    5. One other danger I see in the Archbishop's hint to state employees is that some of them might take it to heart and decide that
    "my conscience allow's me to discriminate against the followers of other faiths as they are false" should they follow his hint and
    develop their conscience further. However, I think that that point might be better debated on another "religious affairs" thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1837
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    aloyisious wrote: »
    To me there is a clear hint from the Archbishop
    the hint aimed at Roman Catholic state employees
    I strongly suspect that the question from Dr Murray to Archbishop Martin was pre-planned, as was the carefully worded reply.
    the Archbishop's hint to state employees
    I love how you're reading "hints" into everything, whilst glossing over the Archbishop's express words that he is not calling for a conscience clause.

    Why is it so important for you to claim that the Archbishop is demanding something he has explicitly rejected?

    Your link was wrong. Accept it.

    A bald statement denying an appeal for a conscience clause, as well as criticising homophobia, would ordinarily be something you'd expect the Yes side to welcome.

    But of course people won't welcome it. Nor will you admit your link made a false claim. There are no points to be scored from doing so.


  • Options
    #1838
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,557 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I love how you're reading "hints" into everything, whilst glossing over the Archbishop's express words that he is not calling for a conscience clause.

    Why is it so important for you to claim that the Archbishop is demanding something he has explicitly rejected?

    Your link was wrong. Accept it.

    A bald statement denying an appeal for a conscience clause, as well as criticising homophobia, would ordinarily be something you'd expect the Yes side to welcome.

    But of course people won't welcome it. Nor will you admit your link made a false claim. There are no points to be scored from doing so.

    Then maybe Dr Murray should not have mentioned the conscience issue at all. It's certainly the elephant in the room now, following on from Dr Murray's question. Not wanting this to end up a "Yes, you did, No, I didn't" slanging match between us here wasting space and time, I did not claim the archbishop DEMANDED anything. I just pointed out the interchange between Dr Murray and him on the conscience issue in the link you provided, including his "develop their conscience" remark. I actually wrote, edited and re-wrote my post to you so we could debate the issue raised by Dr Murray with Archbishop Martin, and how it could be interpreted by the state solemnizers mentioned, instead of having the type of verbal sparring match that happen's here.


  • Options
    #1839
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Then maybe Dr Murray should not have mentioned the conscience issue at all. It's certainly the elephant in the room now, following on from Dr Murray's question. Not wanting this to end up a "Yes, you did, No, I didn't" slanging match
    :confused:

    You realize this makes zero sense? The Archbishop expressly denied seeking a conscience clause. This is not what he is calling for. Now you're saying you wish he hadn't said that, because it would have been less ambiguous. Maybe to you. I can assure you that most people would deem the words "not calling for a conscience clause" adequately clear.

    Your link was wrong. Move on. Everybody else has.


  • Options
    #1840
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,557 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    conorh91 wrote: »
    :confused:

    You realize this makes zero sense? The Archbishop expressly denied seeking a conscience clause. This is not what he is calling for. Now you're saying you wish he hadn't said that, because it would have been less ambiguous. Maybe to you. I can assure you that most people would deem the words "not calling for a conscience clause" adequately clear.

    Your link was wrong. Move on. Everybody else has.

    Wrong. Just because you fail to see and accept that in the article there is also a direct connection between his mention of freedom of conscience in reference to state (solemnizers) employees in respect of their duties (when the specific duty is about officiating at same-sex marriage) as against that given to religious solemnizers (which he was apparently worried about, but is definitely NOT at risk) does not mean that the Archbishop failed to get the point about solemnizers and freedom of conscience across to the public. That will not go away, we all know there is more than one way of skinning a cat.


  • Options
    #1841
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Ok.

    Normal service has resumed. New thread in the Cafe for the issues regarding the Church and State etc:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057407059#

    Please bear in mind the higher standards of the main charter, and if in doubt post in the Cafe instead.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1842
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    Straight people have no reason to be opposed to gays or gay marriage or adoption.

    The majority of gay people in the world are in the closet and the majority of those people marry members of the opposite sex in order to have families and children so the majority of gay people chose not to live gay lifestyles and chose to live heterosexual lifestyles and the majority of gay people are therefore parents of children already. Most gay people therefore agree that marriage is between a man and woman and marriage is for children.

    The majority of gays are married and have decided to give up the possibility of a gay lifestyle in order to have families and children so when other gays live openly gay lifestyles it threatens them because if they are tempted to join them they risk losing their friends, families and children. The majority of homophobes are people with gay or bisexual orientation who are fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children. This is why homophobia is ingrained in religion and why many gays take refuge in religion to reinforce their family values.

    If gays get full rights in Ireland to marry and adopt children I do not believe it will effect homophobic attitudes as the majority of gays will still chose to have their own children rather than adopt and the best way to have your own children is to marry and have children with the opposite sex.


  • Options
    #1843
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    Straight people have no reason to be opposed to gays or gay marriage or adoption.

    The majority of gay people in the world are in the closet and the majority of those people marry members of the opposite sex in order to have families and children so the majority of gay people chose not to live gay lifestyles and chose to live heterosexual lifestyles and the majority of gay people are therefore parents of children already. Most gay people therefore agree that marriage is between a man and woman and marriage is for children.

    The majority of gays are married and have decided to give up the possibility of a gay lifestyle in order to have families and children so when other gays live openly gay lifestyles it threatens them because if they are tempted to join them they risk losing their friends, families and children. The majority of homophobes are people with gay or bisexual orientation who are fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children. This is why homophobia is ingrained in religion and why many gays take refuge in religion to reinforce their family values.

    If gays get full rights in Ireland to marry and adopt children I do not believe it will effect homophobic attitudes as the majority of gays will still chose to have their own children rather than adopt and the best way to have your own children is to marry and have children with the opposite sex.

    So let me get this straight; your argument is that because homophobia has forced gay people into denying their sexuality and pretending to be straight (because that is why gay people stay in the closet, homophobic pressure) there therefore is no homophobia and thus gay marriage shouldn't be legalised?

    This "thinking" is genius commensurate with the level of Star Trek's Pakleds.


  • Options
    #1844
    jimdublin15
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭jimdublin15


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    a gay lifestyle

    I like your post and agree in part with it. Gay marriage is no threat to Heterosexual marriage.

    People want to live there life's. i.e Go to work, Pay bills and in the evening go home and spend time with they're loved ones or make each other miserable.
    Giving that same right/recognition to a group who want to be able to do the same is no threat.

    Just one thing, you say many gays would marry and give up a gay lifestyle - So what is a gay lifestyle ? And I'm serious I don't know what the difference is (beyond the bedroom stuff) between Gay and Heterosexual lifestyle.

    Jim.


  • Options
    #1845
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    So let me get this straight; your argument is that because homophobia has forced gay people into denying their sexuality and pretending to be straight (because that is why gay people stay in the closet, homophobic pressure) there therefore is no homophobia and thus gay marriage shouldn't be legalised?

    This "thinking" is genius commensurate with the level of Star Trek's Pakleds.

    I think I explained what I said clearly enough.

    I am saying that the reason most gay people choose to remain in the closet and marry and have kids is because it is the least troublesome way to have a family and kids.

    Homophobia is primarily inflicted on gays by other gays because other gays living openly gay lifestyles threatens gays who have chosen to get married and have kids. They fear temptation and they fear the break up of their families. Since they are gay they also fear their kids will inherit the same traits as them.

    Most people want a legacy, especially if they are wealthy and have a business and want to pass it on when they die. So they have kids and mold those kids in their image and when they shuffle off this mortal coil they leave their fortune and business in "safe" hands.

    Most parents who learn their son or daughter is gay are devastated because it means no grandchildren. When many parents raise a daughter or son they look forward to their wedding and when they can bounce their grandkids on their knee. There is a visceral horror until they finally accept their child is gay or else they disown them.

    For closet gays with families and kids the temptation of the gay lifestyle fills them with horror because as they see it threatens to unravel family and society.

    It is no accident that the most vocal homophobes are regularly exposed as closet homosexuals.

    It is deeply naive to think homophobia is going to die out.


  • Options
    #1846
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    jimdublin15 wrote: »
    I like your post and agree in part with it. Gay marriage is no threat to Heterosexual marriage.

    People want to live there life's. i.e Go to work, Pay bills and in the evening go home and spend time with they're loved ones or make each other miserable.
    Giving that same right/recognition to a group who want to be able to do the same is no threat.

    Just one thing, you say many gays would marry and give up a gay lifestyle - So what is a gay lifestyle ? And I'm serious I don't know what the difference is (beyond the bedroom stuff) between Gay and Heterosexual lifestyle.

    Jim.

    What I mean by a gay lifestyle is living openly gay and having gay relationships.


  • Options
    #1847
    jimdublin15
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭jimdublin15


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    What I mean by a gay lifestyle is living openly gay and having gay relationships.

    So in essence no real difference in lifestyle then.


  • Options
    #1848
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    jimdublin15 wrote: »
    So in essence no real difference in lifestyle then.

    A gay man or woman who pretends to heterosexual and has a sexual relationship with the opposite sex and has children is obviously not living a gay lifestyle.
    A gay man or woman who is openly homosexual and has sexual relationships with the same sex is clearly living a gay lifestyle.
    The point I was making was that the majority of gay people remain in the closet in order to get married so they can have a family and kids.
    They give up the opportunity of a homosexual relationship in return for having kids that are their genetic children.


  • Options
    #1849
    jimdublin15
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭jimdublin15


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    Homophobia is primarily inflicted on gays by other gays because other gays living openly gay lifestyles threatens gays who have chosen to get married and have kids.
    They fear temptation and they fear the break up of their families. Since they are gay they also fear their kids will inherit the same traits as them.

    Any studies to back that one up ? Particulary the last part regading the fear kids will inherit the same traits links and stats please ?.

    Not that I see what it has to do with equal rights BTW.
    It sounds a bit Biphobic to me, you would not haappen to be gay and jelouse now would you ?
    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    The majority of homophobes are people with gay or bisexual orientation who are fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children.

    Any links and/or details please on the number of bisexuals fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children. Or are you speaking from experience ?
    Don't see what it has to do with equal rights BTW.


  • Options
    #1850
    jimdublin15
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭jimdublin15


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    A gay man or woman who pretends to heterosexual and has a sexual relationship with the opposite sex and has children is obviously not living a gay lifestyle.
    A gay man or woman who is openly homosexual and has sexual relationships with the same sex is clearly living a gay lifestyle.
    The point I was making was that the majority of gay people remain in the closet in order to get married so they can have a family and kids.
    They give up the opportunity of a homosexual relationship in return for having kids that are their genetic children.

    I see...

    Not that it matters then. BTW I'm all for equal rights, anyone should be able to marry whomever they want. No threat to anyone else as far as I can tell.

    Go to work, Pay bills, Buy a house make each other happy or miserable, have kids or don't, get a divorce, or stay together. Be you two men, two women, or a man and a woman. I don't see a problem.


  • Options
    #1851
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    jimdublin15 wrote: »
    Any studies to back that one up ? Particulary the last part regading the fear kids will inherit the same traits links and stats please ?.

    Not that I see what it has to do with equal rights BTW.
    It sounds a bit Biphobic to me, you would not haappen to be gay and jelouse now would you ?

    I am straight and I am not homophobic or biphobic and I fully support LGBT rights.
    I am simply explaining the phenomena of homophobia which is driven by closet homosexuality.
    I don't know why you are reacting in a hostile manner.
    Any links and/or details please on the number of bisexuals fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children. Or are you speaking from experience ?

    I have encountered many people who I suspected were gay or bisexual and turned out to be so and I have met people who are married and want to remain married because they like it and want children and feel threatened by the vocal and unapologetic-ally open LGBT community.
    Don't see what it has to do with equal rights BTW.

    My point is that is naive to believe homophobia will die out just because LGBT people achieve full equality.

    It is bizarre that my post which was supportive of gays and dissected homophobia would be misconstrued as homophobic. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1852
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    jimdublin15 wrote: »
    I see...

    Not that it matters then. BTW I'm all for equal rights, anyone should be able to marry whomever they want. No threat to anyone else as far as I can tell.

    Go to work, Pay bills, Buy a house make each other happy or miserable, have kids or don't, get a divorce, or stay together. Be you two men, two women, or a man and a woman. I don't see a problem.

    I don't see a problem either. I am merely pointing out the driving force behind homophobia and why homophobia is unlikely to die out.


  • Options
    #1853
    jimdublin15
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭jimdublin15


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    I am straight and I am not homophobic or biphobic and I fully support LGBT rights.
    I am simply explaining the phenomena of homophobia which is driven by closet homosexuality.
    I don't know why you are reacting in a hostile manner.

    I'm not hostile and I agree with you equal rights are good, I just asked for numbers as your statement read as fact.
    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    I have encountered many people who I suspected were gay or bisexual and turned out to be so and I have met people who are married and want to remain married because they like it and want children.

    I know what you mean, I get strong feelings from some posters I come across.

    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    My point is that is naive to believe homophobia will die out just because LGBT people achieve full equality.

    It is bizarre that my post which was supportive of gays and dissected homophobia would be misconstrued as homophobic. :D

    I agree I also don't think homophobia will die out after equal rights. I don't think the reason for getting equal rights is to stop homophobia, it's just about having equal rights.

    I'm not saying your homophobic.


  • Options
    #1854
    jimdublin15
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭jimdublin15


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    I don't see a problem either. I am merely pointing out the driving force behind homophobia and why homophobia is unlikely to die out.

    Homopobia is unlikely to die out. Agreed, but the same goes for sexism and racism, Bipobia and any other phobia or ism you can think of. We can all reduce the issue if each of us start by no longer entertaining it.

    However this not about fixing the world with one vote, or stomping out phobia's and ism's it's simple question of equal rights. Equal rights is no danger or threat to anyone.
    That's what were going to be voting on. Nothing more and nothing less really.

    As for the reason for the Homophopia, you have stated it's gays and bi's driving this who are in the closet, who are just jealous of other "gays" in the open. That might be what you think however it not fact you have no numbers or personal "first hand" experience you say to back it up. So that's your opinion and a different discussion I think. (I am not saying this might be in part true, I'm just unsure the majority of homophobia stems from this) Same goes for what you said regarding that "gays" are worried that their kids they have might have same traits as them. (I have never heard this one BTW) You have no facts it's just a wide broad statement of what you think.


  • Options
    #1855
    bb1234567
    Registered Users Posts: 5,496 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    I think I explained what I said clearly enough.

    I am saying that the reason most gay people choose to remain in the closet and marry and have kids is because it is the least troublesome way to have a family and kids.

    Homophobia is primarily inflicted on gays by other gays because other gays living openly gay lifestyles threatens gays who have chosen to get married and have kids. They fear temptation and they fear the break up of their families. Since they are gay they also fear their kids will inherit the same traits as them.

    Most people want a legacy, especially if they are wealthy and have a business and want to pass it on when they die. So they have kids and mold those kids in their image and when they shuffle off this mortal coil they leave their fortune and business in "safe" hands.

    Most parents who learn their son or daughter is gay are devastated because it means no grandchildren. When many parents raise a daughter or son they look forward to their wedding and when they can bounce their grandkids on their knee. There is a visceral horror until they finally accept their child is gay or else they disown them.

    For closet gays with families and kids the temptation of the gay lifestyle fills them with horror because as they see it threatens to unravel family and society.

    It is no accident that the most vocal homophobes are regularly exposed as closet homosexuals.

    It is deeply naive to think homophobia is going to die out.

    Its not, most homophobes are straight. Theres an awful lot of homophobes, in fact most people living outside the western world are homophobic , do you think they're all self hating gays? I kind of get your point though, but it seems a bit naive

    Also itd be lovely to think that the only or main reason most parents would hate to have gay children was because they couldn't produce grand children , but its not, its mostly homophobia. Its very easy for a lesbian to go to a sperm bank and get pregnant, and I'm sure most straight parents know this. So why do many lesbian girls get a hard time off their parents about their sexuality then..


  • Options
    #1856
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    A gay man or woman who pretends to heterosexual and has a sexual relationship with the opposite sex and has children is obviously not living a gay lifestyle.
    A gay man or woman who is openly homosexual and has sexual relationships with the same sex is clearly living a gay lifestyle.
    The point I was making was that the majority of gay people remain in the closet in order to get married so they can have a family and kids.
    They give up the opportunity of a homosexual relationship in return for having kids that are their genetic children.

    And is there data to back that notion up?


  • Options
    #1857
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    Nodin wrote: »
    And is there data to back that notion up?

    It is clear that the majority of gays are not out even in these supposedly enlightened times.
    The majority of people get married or are have heterosexual relationships.
    So it follows that the majority of gays who are getting married are pretending to be straight and are suppressing their homosexuality.
    Why would they have sexual relationships with the opposite sex when they are not attracted to them?
    Hmmm.
    Heterosexual sex is a good way of becoming the parent of a kid and having a family?
    Would these people be motivated to be homophobic and opposed to gay marriage and gay lifestyles in general?
    You bet.


  • Options
    #1858
    jimdublin15
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭jimdublin15


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    It is clear that the majority of gays are not out even in these supposedly enlightened times.
    The majority of people get married or are have heterosexual relationships.
    So it follows that the majority of gays who are getting married are pretending to be straight and are suppressing their homosexuality.
    Why would they have sexual relationships with the opposite sex when they are not attracted to them?
    Hmmm.
    Heterosexual sex is a good way of becoming the parent of a kid and having a family?
    Would these people be motivated to be homophobic and opposed to gay marriage and gay lifestyles in general?
    You bet.

    No, see you said: majority of gay people remain in the closet in order to get married
    A another Poster has asked you for link and data for this statement of fact.

    You can't provide any data or first hand experience, You are offering nothing more than sweeping statements about gay people and presenting it as fact based on what you "think or presume" about gay people.

    Anyhow were off topic. This is about equal rights not about the homophobic well intended statements made by others.


  • Options
    #1859
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    It is clear that the majority of gays are not out even in these supposedly enlightened times..

    It is? Where's your data for this?

    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    The majority of people get married or are have heterosexual relationships.
    .

    Yes, we know this.

    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    So it follows that the majority of gays who are getting married are pretending to be straight and are suppressing their homosexuality.

    Obviously. Which is nothing to do with your claim " that the majority of gay people remain in the closet in order to get married so they can have a family and kids"

    Where is the data for this?


  • Options
    #1860
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    Nodin wrote: »
    It is? Where's your data for this?

    Go get your own. I am confident that if you did a study you would find evidence that supports my view.
    Obviously. Which is nothing to do with your claim " that the majority of gay people remain in the closet in order to get married so they can have a family and kids"

    Why would gays pretend to be straight and get married unless they want to have families and kids and heterosexual marriage was the best way to achieve that goal without being found out?
    Where is the data for this?

    Go find your own. I am confident that when the data comes in my view will be proven.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1861
    bb1234567
    Registered Users Posts: 5,496 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    Go get your own. I am confident that if you did a study you would find evidence that supports my view.



    Why would gays pretend to be straight and get married unless they want to have families and kids and heterosexual marriage was the best way to achieve that goal without being found out?



    Go find your own. I am confident that when the data comes in my view will be proven.

    I really would doubt that the majority of gay people in the western world enter into heterosexual relationships. I would say definitely a significant number do, but you really think MORE than every 1 in 2 gay people are married to somebody of the opposite sex? Id say you're statistic might hold true in countries like India and Pakistan where men and women are expected/obliged and sometimes forced to marry people of the opposite gender, regardless of their sexual orientation.

    Like I live in Dublin and I don't know any married gay couples personally, though I know two gay men who married women, had children and later came out. So I think you're onto something but I find it very hard to believe that gay people who marry people of the opposite gender are in the majority.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement