Gay Rights

Firespinner wrote:

I do have gay friends and we have discussed our views. Most said that gay adoption would put children at risk and needs to wait for a while, after parterships come in when society has changed more. (Admittadly one took Freelancers line that bastards should not be given into). What is the problem with saying "the gays" when that is who you are talking about? As you may guess I found considerably less agreement on the paedophile thing, but that does not mean we stop being friends. They know I do not think that they in particular are paedophiles and face-to-face it is easier to say in a non-offensive way and to explain my stance. Remember a higher percentage are paedophiles (I can't see how straight guys could have sex with boys) but not all.
Oh and I'm 18

Why yes you're a 18yo who has a group of "gay friends" and have had frank and detailed discusions about sexuality, where you have suggested gay people commit the most cases of paedophilia.

You also have a "guard friend" who gives you a detailed break down of security in the city center and protection of gay establishments.

You've also got a detailed understanding of sexual psychology which allows you to dismiss the work of over half a dozen experts because you "don't trust Kinsey" Have you ever read Kinsey? Or just watched the trailer for the movie?

Alternatively you're a bigoted little 18yo with little understanding of adult sexual dynamics who's made a number of dubious claims about adult sexuality and Irish society and when called on them; has been forced to create an imaginary group of "friends" to support your spurious claims and hatemongering.

I think we know which is more likely.

Remember a higher percentage are paedophiles (I can't see how straight guys could have sex with boys) but not all.

You can't see or refuse to see? I've presented a dirth of evidence to support the argument that paedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, you either won't see or aren't mature enough to see that your attitude is nothing more than ill informed bigotry.

AngryBadger wrote:

Just for clarity, I didn't say it WAS NOT, I said I WASN'T CONVINCED, but I'm glad you took the opportunity to jump on the PC bandwagon Rsynnott.

Biologically it takes two heterosexual partners to create a child, children have always been raised by couples reflecting that paradigm. I think there are good reasons for that, and I wonder if a homosexual couple, (be they male or female), can fulfill the two roles that exist in a heterosexual relationship. Roles which are important to any child's emotional development.

Yet theres utterly no evidence that it is necessary, people can have a parent who is emotionally distant from them.

A friend of mine grew up with a father who was in the merchant navy, her father was often away for up to 6 or 7 months, and as a result she didn't have much contact with her father, and was raised primarily by her mother, but she has turned out completely normal.

Or the generation born in the late 30s to mid 40s in the UK? Most would have had little or no contact with their fathers for 6 or 7 years? They were primarly raised by an extented family of women.

AngryBadger wrote:

I'm not saying they can't, but I am asking is that healthy? Is it ideal? Is that how you would imagine a relationship between a parent and child?

I'm not commenting on ths specific case of your friends, or indeed any other specific cases.

But how do you think it will damage children? And what do you think is a healthier environment for a child? In a home with two people in a healthy loving relationship? Or a Romanian orphanage?

AngryBadger wrote:

That argument doesn't hold up any better.

The original question was an absolute, should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children. In answer to that question I need a benchmark for the best conditions under which to raise a child, the best benchmark I have is that children have always been raised by heterosexual couples, this was as much a biological fact as anything else.

No a hetreosexual couple was the only way to bring a child into the world, its a biological requirement to create human life. It doesn't mean that it's the only environment that a child should to be raised in.

And again the traditional family hetreosexual unit is a fallacy, countless people have been raised outside some mythic 50s suburban 2.5 children enviroment, so to suggest theres something dangerous to children in being raised in an "non traditional" environment is simple scaremongering.

It's also accepted that children need both a "father", and a "mother" figure, and without these figures children tend to suffer in their upbringing. So I'm asking can a homosexual couple realistically expect to fulfill those roles?

And again thousands upon thousands of people have been raised in a environment without both a mother and father

Its an interesting use of the word figure by the way, people can develop that bond with non biological parents, who's to say one man won't biological imprint won't fit the mother roll.

The mother is just usually the person who takes care of basic needs, and spends the most time with children for example.

Homosexual couples are no different to other couples in terms of how good/bad/indifferent they are as people. However, that doesn't have any bearing on the original question posed, which has to be answered in terms of what would be best for any children, ad in those terms I'm not convinced a homosexual couple could fulfill the nesessary roles.

The question posed is a simple yes or no. Your justification is that you don't think they'll fit classic upbringing of a traditional family structure. You've ignored when its pointed out that thousands of people aren't raised in your traditional family unit, and turn out fine, so essentially your entire point that this could be "unhealthy" is moot.

The original question was not "Would a homosexual couple be a better choice for children than a romanian orphanage"

Fine but to say it's going to be unhealthy for children raised in this environment, what specifically are you concerns, what evidence do you have that people not raised in a traditional family unit are "unhealthier" that people who are?

AngryBadger wrote:

Firstly, in none of my posts did I say homosexual couples, would be "unhealthy", or "dangerous", I'm merely postulating based on the very real history of child rearing that exists.

Here;

AngryBadger wrote:

i'm still not convinced a homosexual couple is a healthy environment for a child.

"not" and "healthy" ergo unhealthy, you've decline to explain what you mean by "not healthy" for a page now.

As for the "real" history of child rearing, your fixation on the basis that a 2.5 hetreosexual couple raising a child together ignores the real history that dynamic didn't and doesn't exist for tens of thousands of perfectly normal people in this country, therefore suggesting that we need a straight nuclear family to be raised well is wrong.

"Fine" is a completely relative term. Neither of us can claim t have a total understanding of the bonds that deveop between children, and their biological parents, what is surely obvious is that these bonds do exist. If these bonds are severed, for whatever reason, it will be an issue for the child in later life. This is a fact.

The scenario you're suggesting is the exact same situation for any adopted child. Their "bonds" are "severed" from their biological parents when they are adopted.

So that isn't an argument aganist gay couples adopting, its an argument aganist anyone adopting.

Is it adoption or gay adoption you have issue with?

Erego, there is some intangible advantage to a child being raised by their natural parents. I'm simply wondering if that bond, those relationships can be supplanted as easily as you suggest?

Well again the above is argument aganist adoption period, and I submit that the many happy well adjusted adopted people in this world, are a case for nurture rather than nature creating a powerful bond between parents be they straight or gay.

And I'm also not blind to the possibile social fallout for both child, and society when raised by a homosexual couple.

Ah the stigma thats been long covered, but tell us, what social fallout do you see for the child. And please elaborate what fallout will there be for society?

I fial to see how this is scaremongering in any way, to deny what I'm talking about is just being obtuse about the whole issue.

I'm being obtuse? You're the one pussyfooting around what you are saying, you've failed to elaborate why you don't think its "healthy" for children to be in a gay environment.

AngryBadger wrote:

I have no interest in being painted as a hompphonbe by you or anyone else Freelancer. I'm querying the suitability of a homosexual relationship as an environment for raising a child end of story. if you don't like it feel free to write a letter.

Excuse me? When did I say or even suggest that you were a homophobe.

And you're not querying, you've muttered something about a homosexual enviroment might not be "healthy" for children and have refused to elaborate further what you mean by that, but instead have go off on a tagent about "severing biological links" and "social fallout for society" but again refused to elaborate what you think that means. If you want to bring something to the debate explain your position and opinion and where you are coming from, dont claim "you're querying the suitability" when all you've done is thrown your opinion into the ring and refused to explain what drew you to your position.

Firespinner wrote:

We are the same island. Most people I know have relatives up North. The figures for the ROI will be different but the cultures are similar enough that the numbers should be related. (although as you say, the North's may be higher due to a certain violent tinge to society)

As I mentioned earlier most seem to be related to Unionist thugs with ties to far right extremists like combat 18. Seeing as we need to bus unionists down to Dublin to create a problem, your claims that the "cultures are different but similar" simply isn't true. This can be born out in the fact that there hasn't been an explosion of gay assaults in Dublin or anywhere else in the republic in the same time period. Nor is it such an issue for the gay community down here that they feel the problem needs highlighting and addressing.

Try google.



Again, try google, I even gave you what to type in.

Do you know how pathetically infantile your arguing strategy is? Firstly creating an elaborate group of "friends" who confirm your preconceptions, then dismissing psycholgists reports with a single sentence without substance and merit. Now you're stating something is true then saying "meh you do the research". You made a claim. The onus is on you to support it. Don't arrogantly wave me in the direction of the internet and demand that I do your research for you.

I disagree. It is often said that the most common insult said in playgrounds is "****". No studies have been done but from what I remember of school it is probably true.

Wow just wow. You're now reduced to assuring us based on your childhood experience. But no studies have been done? Studies have been done into the psychological well being of children raised by gay couples, and cited in this thread;
http://www.gayrightswatch.com/2005/10/study-children-raised-by-gay-parents.html

Based on nine studies from 1981 to 1994 of 260 children, aged three to 11 years, reared by either heterosexual mothers or same sex-mothers after divorce, the researchers found there was no difference in intelligence of the children, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, or parental stress.

And here;

Overall, then, results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges from results of existing research is thus one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, and with mothers' adult friends--both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Studies in this area to date are few, and the data emerging from them are sketchy. On the basis of existing research findings, however, fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities are unfounded.

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

Do you think that children would not get the ****e kicked out of them by other children? That they would not get picked on worse then other "fat" children.
It is like naming a boy Sue, and then abandoning him. (I love that song).

Again theres a dirth of evidence up there that you're scaremongering, similar to the claims you've now quietly dropped about a greater chance of these children being the victims of paedophilia.

Firespinner wrote:

Prove it.

As always happy to

Between April 2002 and July 2004 there have been 828 racist incidents most, but not all, in loyalist areas. Between April 2003 and April 2004 there were 453 racist attacks across the North, 147 or more than a quarter were in South Belfast. Between April and July of this year there were 149 racist incidents 84 of which took place in loyalist areas of South Belfast.

and

That loyalism has added a new racist string to its sectarian bow will not come as a surprise to many given its supremacist ideology and history. Links between loyalism and the British far right are long established, whether it is the articles lifted straight out of 'Spearhead', the National Front paper, into 'Combat' the UVF magazine in the 1970's or Loyalist support for the racist Rhodesian and South African regimes in the 1970's and 1980's. In 1974 a National Front member, John Gadd, was convicted for his part in a loyalist arms smuggling route from Canada.

In 1980 Jackie Irvine and Joe Bennet of the UVF met representatives of the Flemish fascist organisation VMO.Many will remember that the UFF's Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair and many of his C Company started out as a neo Nazi skinhead band called 'offensive weapon'.
In 1983 the 200 strong Shankill based 'NF Skins' beat to death a Catholic Patrick Barkley. Many members of this fascist gang were later recruited by the youth wings of the UDA and UVF.

In May 1993 the UDA's London commander, Frank Portinari, and a neo Nazi Combat 18 member, Eddie Whicker, were arrested while trying to smuggle handguns to loyalists in the North. More recently far right groups like the BNP, Combat 18 and White Wolves have tried to establish roots in loyalist heartlands across the North and a branch of the White Nationalist Party has been established in Ballymena.

http://www.inc.ie/winter04g.html

It was a combat 18 member who blew up the Nelson gay bar in London's soho.

The main fear, of course, is that such fund-raising events help the LVF, an organisation which has been on ceasefire for the past year, generate the cash to buy weapons to assist in their stated aim of bringing down the Good Friday Agreement. But the development is not exactly surprising, given that Loyalist terrorists were, as recently as last March, secretly training neo Nazi thugs behind nail bomb attacks in London.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/08/25/ihead_23.htm


And theres more

Northern Ireland was the last place in Britain to decriminalise homosexuality in 1982 and its most popular politician, the Rev Ian Paisley, began his Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign from the spot where the couple’s guests will arrive. Last month one of his party’s councillors said Hurricane Katrina had been sent by God to punish the New Orleans gay community for holding a gay pride festival. The Free Presbyterian minister David McIlveen told the Guardian he would lead a “formidable” protest against the “abomination” of homosexuality outside the ceremony

We do not have their sectarian violence such as the unionists, but we do have assaults, stabbings, racial attacks etc. so reasonless violence exists here as well.

Reasonless violence exists everywhere. You may as well use this logic to tell inter racial couples not to have children because their children may suffer abuse? However you've yet to provide any evidence that supports your claim that homophobic violence is a serious issue in irish society.

Just out of interest how do you know that there has been no explosion in homophobic violence down here? I could not find the figures for ROI.

Because the gay community wouldn't take it lying down. There would be articles, news stories, protests. Check the LGB section of boards, someone got their nose broken a few months ago, and they nearly held a protest march. If such an increase in violence was occuring we'd know about it.

My friends are real. Accept it or shut up. I cannot post a link to them or give you their addresses.

uh huh......

I did the research I told you what to type in.

Bollocks pure and simple. The above, the articles and the links?
Thats research. What you're suggesting, is waving me in the direction of the internet and telling me to go find it myself is laughable debating and what we've come to expect from you.

It is something that is often said. The fact that it was true in my case (followed closely by spa) does not diminish it. Can I ask what the most commen insult in your childhood was? You are older but I bet **** was up there.

yeah. so. and. what? Kids call each other names tell them they'll catch aids of each and said stupid nasty names. You've not offered any evidence that the children of gay parents are going to recieve serious bullying.

Studies on playground insults.

Why don't you run off and do one? Its be an excellent test of your clinical survey skills. What I did is I did show you there had been studies into the well being of children adopted by gay couples, and they turned out fine. A slighty better barometer of what the effects of being adopted by a gay couple is, well anything would be better than your slag-o-meter.

A pro-gay site.

So? The research wasn't done by the site. They're just pubilising it. The research was carried out by

from article wrote:

Based on nine studies from 1981 to 1994 of 260 children

long before we had y'know websites. Thats nine studies by child psychologists, not a gay website. How is it discredited, by being published on gay website?

Last time I heard of them they had said being too fat was a mental illness.

Really? Prove it. Don't wave me in the direction of the internet, don't tell me your friend said it, support something you say for change.

Still the case you quoted was done respectably

Well glad it has the firespinner seal of approval, so, you admit the case has merits and children raised by gay couples don't seem to have any psychological scars, get on well with their peer groups, and haven't been abused. So y'know pokes a massively hole in your argument. Care to comment?

I have dropped nothing but I will admit that Wicknites post has made me reconsider.

Wicknight myself and bluewolf all published an argument aganist your assertion, bluewolf and I even went to the trouble of research you just ignored.

Firespinner wrote:

It is logic. In adult society the amount of fat people who get assaulted because they are fat is probably low. There are homophobic attacks, however which occur due to a sexuality. If one takes the figure of 71 and multiplies it by 4 to compensate for population difference that leads to 284 attacks in the South. Even if half of them are disqualified by difference in culture then that leaves 142 attacks. Do you think that many adults were attacked for being fat?

Good of you to, once again, avoid all the evidence you demanded I prove. Its tedious and wearying, if you demand I prove something, don't ignore it in the next post, Either admit you were wrong, or rebut it. You look like a coward for avoiding it.

The above is just idiocy, for starts your sampling is infantile, it ignores the culture of violence aganist gay people in the north. You cannot take the above as an accurate depication of situation in the south. You've failed utterly to back up your comment that homopobic attacks are common the south, and have been reduced to creating inane statistical models based on the north (ignoring the culture of homophobia), and then comparing it to fat attacks.

The conclusion that you come to

Do you think that many adults were attacked for being fat?

Is just inane, most gay bashing takes place late at night near and around gay establishments, you cannot use the above to prove children adopted by gay parents will face violence. You just cannot. You've basically come up with an equation which is

sectarian violence in foreign country x population size in ireland / mean population weight = possible numbers of child assaults for children adopted by "the gays". Nonsense.......

The limited number of attacks on gay people in the south is proven because it appears to be an non issue, taking the regretable instances in the north multipling them by population size and then bizarrely population weight and then coming up with some warped logic is really reaching.......

that sucks.

Says the guy who compares being the child of a couple of loving gay parents to a johnny cash song. :rolleyes:

No it doesn't. That composite was performed by a lesbian with 3 kids (smell the bias), whose work has been labelled propeganda. These claims turn up on google before the link you gave my so I assume you saw them and still posted flawed research. http://www.narth.com/docs/patterson.html

I'm sorry you accused me a few posts ago of writing from pro gay websites and it could be easily ignored. You're now quoting an article from narth.com.
Did you even look who www.narth.com are?
the national association for research and therapy of homosexuals.
These are people who believe being gay can be cured. I suggest you tell one of your "many gay and bi-sexual friends" that you agree with the findings of narth.

Narth's partisanship and bias can be easily seen.

For example look at this

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and a prominent Love Won Out speaker, has a few strange ideas of his own. For instance, he postulates that "non-homosexual men who experience defeat and failure may also experience homosexual fantasies or dreams." He also encourages his clients to act more masculine by drinking Gatorade or calling friends "dude." Another leading NARTH member, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. believes that anti-depressants such as Prozac may help cure homosexuality.

With such peculiar ideas, it is no surprise that groups such as Exodus and NARTH scrupulously avoid documenting their work. When asked by Newsweek magazine why he kept no statistics, Nicolosi replied that he "didn't have time." These groups continue to exist, not to help people, but to help religious political leaders like Focus on the Family's James Dobson and former Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell deny gay people equal rights. Their message is simple: Since gay people can "change" they do not deserve protection from discrimination.

From here
http://www.anythingbutstraight.com/author/oped1.html

Or how about from the horse's mouth

NARTH members will be familiar with the politicization of AIDS. Militant gays continue to protest that not enough research is being done, asserting that this constitutes discrimination against gays. But in fact a great deal of research is being done, and one can arguably say that AIDS is the highest-profile disease in America. Such attempts to focus on homophobia and discrimination serve to take the focus off the self-defeating sexuality of many gays, who in fact do not consistently practice safe sex themselves, yet continually warn others that we are in the midst of a mainstream epidemic.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/militant.html

Your author, of your rebuttal, is essentially saying AIDS is the fault of "the gays". In pseudo scientific terms he is essentially that aids is punishment for "self defeating sexuality". God where have I heard such language before.......

Also incidently in the same article he tries to downplay the rape rate in the US, claiming the figures are inflated, which would contradict your claim the like rape, homophobic attacks go mostly unreported. Hey firespinner quick tip when you're trying to do a rebuttal article, read who you're quoting as a rebuttal and get to know them better, it would also help if you checked that while an article might supporting your rebuttal, check to see if it will weaken another one of your points. No I'm not trying to suggest Dr Gerald Schoenewolf is a reliable source for er anything........

You're also frantically ignoring the other article which I'll repeat the quote again.

from the other article wrote:

Based on nine studies from 1981 to 1994 of 260 children, aged three to 11 years, reared by either heterosexual mothers or same sex-mothers after divorce, the researchers found there was no difference in intelligence of the children, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, or parental stress.

Wicknite said it better, even though I slightly disagree with him. Since the research you posted missed the fundemental point (which comes first for paedophiles: youth or gender?) or used methods which could not reasonable evaluate this, I put them aside

Huh? What? They used the Kinsey scale the best scale to understand human sexuality, but hey you dismissed it as "you wouldn't trust kinsey" (not that kinsey wrote the report) claiming that they "used methods which could not reasonable evaluate this" translates as; "I don't know what I am talking about, so I'm going to ignore it."

If you really don't believe me that people would attack homsexual's children I suggest that you visit Stormforce.

Yeah, if you check AH on this site, you'll see a thread about the "white wolves" a right wing white supremacist camp in the dublin mountains. Ugly looking bunch of fúckers, lots of beer bellies, right wing and republican tattoos. Bunch of skinheads. Dangerous looking lads all six of 'em You really think these morons are going to not be arrested 60ft from any school.........

Are you suggesting we oppose social progress because it will piss off a tiny bunch of thick skulled skin heads? Hey I'll go grap the middle easterns and eastern europeans, you go get the ****, and the fags while you're at it round up the boats..........

Oh and "stormforce" is ,I think, a comic book. "Stormfront" is a neo nazi website.