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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

245678

Comments

  • #52
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ChocolateSauce: The material goes both ways. It's not conclusive. I personally don't feel that the family is the place to experiment.


  • #53
    cotwold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 950 ✭✭✭cotwold


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    +1. Nothing wrong with Gay adoption per say, just that it isn't the preferred method of Child rearing.

    But you'd deprive gay couples of their right to adopt, and deprive the children of gay parents to their second parents' parental rights over their children.

    I don't have anything against homophobes per se but generally they don't think too deeply about the issues they so readily give their opinion on.


  • #54
    cotwold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 950 ✭✭✭cotwold


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ChocolateSauce: The material goes both ways. It's not conclusive. I personally don't feel that the family is the place to experiment.

    Well their are gay couples with children and more deciding to get children all the time so what do you do about that.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    OP: It's not that I'm afraid of gay marriage. I just feel the civil partnership legislation is adequate.

    I that case should we do out with civil marriage completely. If its adequate for us it should be adequate for straight couples.


  • #55
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    Jakkass wrote: »
    +1

    OP: It's not that I'm afraid of gay marriage. I just feel the civil partnership legislation is adequate.

    But what are your exact reasons for being opposed to gay marriage? Leaving out adoption, why would you not want full marriage rights for gay couples? CP isn't good enough. We only want marriage in the eyes of the goverment, NOT the church. Why should Christianity infringe on peoples rights?


  • #56
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe the child has the right to a mother and a father, and that this should be the preferrable family unit first and foremost.

    Preferrable maybe, but not always achieveable. Not all parents are good parents. If a child ends up in state care, particularly if it's an older child (who usually find it harder to be adopted) would it not be better for them if they are adopted by two parents of the same gender who are after proving they will provide the child with a loving, nurturing home and give them a good education, or would you rather they stay in foster homes and care homes, vastly reducing their chances to suceed in life?


  • #57
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MultiUmm wrote: »
    But what are your exact reasons for being opposed to gay marriage? Leaving out adoption, why would you not want full marriage rights for gay couples? CP isn't good enough. We only want marriage in the eyes of the goverment, NOT the church. Why should Christianity infringe on peoples rights?

    All people currently have the right to a marriage. The problem here is that people are not satisfied with what a marriage is defined as. A marriage in an Irish legal context is a union between a man and a woman.

    A civil union, as proposed by the new legislation is a union between a two of the same gender. As such both are distinct.

    As for Christianity, I think there is room for civil partnerships to be blessed in the church as long as both involved are willing to live by Christian standards in respect to sexual ethics. It's a gray area for me.

    What isn't a gray area for me is that the union between a man and a woman is something distinct from the union between two of the same gender.


  • #58
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    ynotdu wrote: »
    for children to be adopted by a gay couple is IMO a breach/betrayel of Their human rights as they cannot choose their parents and have no say.
    Their is no doubt that these children would be the subject of snide remarks throughout their childhood as things stand.
    Why stop there? Logically extending your argument then we should also include blacks and Jews.

    ...but what if under your scheme the allowed Aryan hetrosexual Irish adoptive parents turned out not to be mass goers? Oh, the ignominy the poor child will face....etc etc.


  • #59
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    Speak for yourself, I don't want my future children learning about Homosexual relationships in school.



    Why not? Why would you be so insecure about your children learning that not everybody is hetrosexual? This doesn't just apply to homosexuality. Would you also be insecure about your children learning that not everyone is white or Christian? How do you expect prejudices to be eleminated, or even reduced? Or would you prefer that bigotry and ignorance would still remain rife?
    Theories are theories, you can't provide them as evidence to support your views.



    I didn't state it was a fact. As you said, theories are theories. Not once did I menion that it was a fact.


  • #60
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    Again speak for yourself.[/QUOTE]



    :rolleyes: Are you comfortable with any kind of sex education being taught? Even in 5th or 6th class?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Aard wrote: »
    I'd be interested in reading the data that confirms this; could you post a link or a reference?

    Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997

    I shouldn't have said "are better", I should have said some studies suggest this. Considering that it is such a hot issue, I imagine that gay parents would put in that little bit of extra effort which would make the overall difference. In a world where they had nothing to prove, I think there wouldn't be a difference.
    jakkass wrote:
    I personally don't feel that the family is the place to experiment.
    The experiments are already done, because millions of openly gay people have been raising children for decades.








    I've found a number of studies which are a large part of the conclusive basis for the claim that children are just as well off in gay families as in straight ones:





    American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.

    Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers' parental competence: A review of the literature. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 67 - 78.

    Falk, P.J. (1994). Lesbian mothers: Psychosocial assumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44, 941-947.

    Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004).

    Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869-1876.

    Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-697.

    Patterson, C.J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1052- 1069.

    Patterson, C.J. (2004a). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Summary of research findings. In Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Patterson, C. J. (2004b). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th Ed.). New York: John Wiley.

    Patterson, C. J., Fulcher, M., & Wainright, J. (2002). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Research, law, and policy. In B. L. Bottoms, M. B. Kovera, and B. D. McAuliff (Eds.), Children, Social Science and the Law (pp, 176 - 199). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Perrin, E. C., and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (2002). Technical Report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341 - 344.

    Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T.J. (2001). (How) Does sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 65, 159-183.

    Tasker, F. (1999). Children in lesbian-led families - A review. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 153 - 166.

    Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family. New York: Guilford Press

    These studies (among others) have lead American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, in the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and in Canada, the Canadian Psychological Association, to all take the formal stance that gays are not bad for children. The European Court of Justice has also ruled in favour of gays on these issues, including on adoption.


  • #62
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    All people currently have the right to a marriage. The problem here is that people are not satisfied with what a marriage is defined as. A marriage in an Irish legal context is a union between a man and a woman.



    If a referendum were to be announced on the issue, would you vote yes or no? You say that you think CP are adaquete, but let's say the goverment decide to ask the people to include civil marriage for gay couples in the constitution, would you be for or against it?



    As for Christianity, I think there is room for civil partnerships to be blessed in the church as long as both involved are willing to
    live by Christian standards in respect to sexual ethics. It's a gray area for me.



    Wouldn't that basically mean a gay couple would be restricted from doing anything sexual together or showing their love towards one and other?


    What isn't a gray area for me is that the union between a man and a woman is something distinct from the union between two of the same gender.[/QUOTE]


    How so is it distinct? Apart from the gender, what is so different about a consenting, loving couple who want to get married?


  • #63
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ChocolateSauce: I'm sure one could find equally as many journals in support of families with a mother and a father. That's why it is utterly unconvincing. It leaves me more in doubt of whether or not gay marriage should be legalised than in support.
    MultiUmm wrote:
    Wouldn't that basically mean a gay couple would be restricted from doing anything sexual together or showing their love towards one and other?

    The conservative context for blessing homosexual unions would be one that would insist on celibacy. Other more liberal groups would hold different views. One can show love without sex.
    MultiUmm wrote:
    How so is it distinct? Apart from the gender, what is so different about a consenting, loving couple who want to get married?

    The family has to be considered.

    The two major differences are:
    1) A mother and a father can biologically bring forth their own children.
    2) Homosexual relationships cannot provide a child with a mother and a father.


  • #64
    cotwold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 950 ✭✭✭cotwold


    Jakkass wrote: »
    All people currently have the right to a marriage. The problem here is that people are not satisfied with what a marriage is defined as. A marriage in an Irish legal context is a union between a man and a woman.

    The legal context is grey area. The constitution doesn't actually define marriage. It could be interpretated as conferring the right to same sex couples as well if the political will to do so existed.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for Christianity, I think there is room for civil partnerships to be blessed in the church as long as both involved are willing to live by Christian standards in respect to sexual ethics. It's a gray area for me.
    You speak of Christianity and Christian values but theres no point unless you actually name which Church you're actually going on about.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    What isn't a gray area for me is that the union between a man and a woman is something distinct from the union between two of the same gender.

    They are distinct from each other but only in so far as the gender combinations. Nothing else relative in the eyes of the law separate them and so they should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

    This issue is one of law, religion actually has no place in it. Any opinion or attitude influenced or conditioned by religion isn't relevant in a proper discussion about same sex marriage.


  • #65
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ChocolateSauce: I'm sure one could find equally as many journals in support of families with a mother and a father.

    Can you? If they existed, why have all the above organisations not considered them? The simple answer is they don't exist. Ones which compare a mother/father family to a single parent family don't count.

    2) Homosexual relationships cannot provide a child with a mother and a father.

    Why is this a bad thing? It does not matter! What matters is a) love and support, and b) There is enough time to raise the child properly. Two loving parents can do this.

    So what if there is a chance the child might not be as "manly" or as "girly" as one with parents of different genders? Surely what matters is that the kid is raised to be a functioning member of society?

    Regarding that topic:
    wikipedia wrote:
    Where some studies have shown that children raised by lesbian mothers conform to stereotypical gender-role behaviour, researchers have observed more relaxed boundaries in sex-typed play (dolls versus trucks) and in gender-stereotypical career aspirations among such children.[29] The argument that same-sex parents are unsuitable for the same reason that single parenting is not an optimal situation hinges on the assumption that children of single-parent households suffer due to a lack of gender role models, rather than due to a lack of parental care and supervision associated with single parenting.[30] Whether studies on single-parent families necessarily relate to parental gender roles or to the quality of parenting provided by same-sex couples is challenged, such as stated in a 2006 report by the Department of Justice (Canada), that it is "independent of the sexual orientation of parents."[31]


  • #66
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ChocolateSauce: I'm sure one could find equally as many journals in support of families with a mother and a father. That's why it is utterly unconvincing. It leaves me more in doubt of whether or not gay marriage should be legalised than in support.
    So you have no problem believing journals that emphasise the role of fathers in a child's development (http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61635334&postcount=208) but are entirely unconvinced when somebody shows ample evidence in support of same-sex parents. Surely if you believe one, then you must believe the other; or if you disbelieve one you should disbelieve the other. Anything else is pure double-standard.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Aard: I am doubtful, and I don't think we should be taking risks. I said in that thread also if you read earlier in it, that there were some journals confirming, and some journals going against such a view. Hence why I feel that it is best to keep supporting the traditional family that we can be confident about as opposed to other forms that we are currently in doubt about.

    It intrigues me that all the research that comments about the gender impact of either a mother and a father that had come previous to much of this research is now rendered obsolete. Could it be that a cultural bias is interfering in what we are trying to investigate?


  • #68
    cotwold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 950 ✭✭✭cotwold


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Aard:Hence why I feel that it is best to keep supporting the traditional family that we can be confident about as opposed to other forms that we are currently in doubt about.

    Well if we follow your approach and your logic we will always be in doubt.


  • #69
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Why stop there? Logically extending your argument then we should also include blacks and Jews.

    ...but what if under your scheme the allowed Aryan hetrosexual Irish adoptive parents turned out not to be mass goers? Oh, the ignominy the poor child will face....etc etc.


    Look two consenting gay married people Know that their child would suffer cruelty from their peers.(and older)

    by adopting a child they are taking a decision knowingly to inflict this pain on the child.

    in my first post i said how tragic it is that gay people have maternal/paternal instincts like everybody else.
    To indulge that instinct despite this knowledge would display to me that they are putting Their needs above the needs of the child.that in my eyes would make me question their fitness for parenthood in the first place.

    As regards massgoers well dont ask me about them as i am agnostic,and have a lot of contempt for much of catholic behaviour.

    i will ignore the black/Jewish crap.


  • #70
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MultiUmm wrote: »
    Why not? Why would you be so insecure about your children learning that not everybody is hetrosexual?
    Simply because I believe that it is not the states place to educate children on issues such as Homosexuality. When the time comes I will tell them about some peoples sexual preferences but it is not the schools job to do so.
    MultiUmm wrote: »
    This doesn't just apply to homosexuality. Would you also be insecure about your children learning that not everyone is white or Christian?.
    No, I have no problem with the School telling them that people are not white or christian.
    MultiUmm wrote: »
    How do you expect prejudices to be eleminated, or even reduced? Or would you prefer that bigotry and ignorance would still remain rife?
    I would prefare that discrimination against homosexuals was reduced, but not through the school system.
    This: Is basically what I'm talking about. IMO every parents worst nightmare.


  • #71
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,264 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    I have taught the children of gay parents. None of them were gay.

    They were no more likely to be bullied because of their parents than for any other reason weak people like to bully.

    They did tend to be better able to deflect it though, probably because of their high self-esteem.

    Most 'anti-gay' bullying in schools is against straight people, usually by closet cases.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Could it be that a cultural bias is interfering in what we are trying to investigate?
    Only as much cultural bias as has interfered with the studies that you have posted.


  • #73
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I would prefare that discrimination against homosexuals was reduced, but not through the school system.
    This: Is basically what I'm talking about. IMO every parents worst nightmare.
    So you want to reduce discrimination against gays, but in the same breath state that your child's curiosity about homosexuality would be your worst nightmare. Do you see the irony in that?


  • #74
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    So you want to reduce discrimination against gays, but in the same breath state that your child's curiosity about homosexuality would be your worst nightmare. Do you see the irony in that?
    No I mean that the child should learn about Homosexuality only when the childs parent thinks is appropriate. Having a yound child come home from school and telling of how they learned of homosexual relationships is simply unacceptable.


  • #75
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No I mean that the child should learn about Homosexuality only when the childs parent thinks is appropriate. Having a yound child come home from school and telling of how they learned of homosexual relationships is simply unacceptable.
    Why is it unacceptable? They're going to find out sooner or later; wouldn't it be better done in a regulated environment, than somewhere where personal biases would come into play?


  • #76
    cotwold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 950 ✭✭✭cotwold


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I would prefare that discrimination against homosexuals was reduced, but not through the school system.

    How about aiming to rid all discrimination against homosexuals, that would probably be aiming a little to high though. Almost as high as conferring them with equal marriage right. (god forbid) :P


  • #77
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    Why is it unacceptable?
    That the state steps in to teach children about Homosexual relationships.
    Aard wrote: »
    They're going to find out sooner or later; wouldn't it be better done in a regulated environment, than somewhere where personal biases would come into play?
    Are you trying to suggest that a parents advice isn't regulated ?


  • #78
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That the state steps in to teach children about Homosexual relationships.
    That doesn't answer why "having a yound child come home from school and telling of how they learned of homosexual relationships" is unacceptable. Is it because you're homophobic?
    Are you trying to suggest that a parents advice isn't regulated ?
    Yes. Some parents will teach their children that homosexuality is a sin, that it's unnatural, and that there is something inherently wrong with gay people.


  • #79
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    That doesn't answer why "having a yound child come home from school and telling of how they learned of homosexual relationships" is unacceptable. Is it because you're homophobic?
    No it is because young children should not be tought about Adult relationships in any form. It is not the states role to educate children on the nature of Homosexuality.


    Aard wrote: »
    Yes. Some parents will teach their children that homosexuality is a sin, that it's unnatural, and that there is something inherently wrong with gay people.
    That's an opinion, not fact.


  • #80
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No it is because young children should not be tought about Adult relationships in any form.
    So they should not be taught about heterosexual relationships?
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It is not the states role to educate children on the nature of Homosexuality.
    Why not? They educate about hetersexuality. Not educating it doesn't mean that it will go away.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That's an opinion, not fact.
    It is a fact. I know somebody whose parents have taught him that homosexuality is evil. And I'm willing to bet that he's not the only one who has been taught that. Saying, "That's an opinion, not fact," is just a cop-out, a burying of the head in the sand to the truth.


  • #81
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Aard wrote: »
    Tbh, I get the feeling that most people who say they are against gay marriage "just because of adoption rights" are using it as a cop out; the reality is that they have a deep-rooted dislike of the idea of two men showing love to each other. Sure, there are some who say that a child should have a mother and a father, but they're in the minority; most can't muster up anything beyond "it's unnatural for two men to be together".


    Also, I can't help but notice that (in this country) it's primarily Christians who make the most noise anti-gay-marriage-wise. They didn't become homophobic, then gravitate to Christianity; rather, they became Christian and then became homophobic. This leads me to believe that all of this homophobia is conditioned, and that nobody is born homophobic. So, for me, the idea of homophobia is just as unnatural as the idea of homosexuality is for homophobes themselves.

    With the greatest respect this does not apply to me therefore I consider it untrue! I am not using adoption as a cop out and before you ask no as such i have no reson other than prejudice but at the end of the day thats my right. I have no problem with people being gay infact I get a good laugh out of a gay friend of mine so if i am being stereo typical i have to say i love the graham norton type just as I can say I like the Megan fox type in women

    i also said if the powers that be vetted gay people and accepted them so would I. But at the end of the day I cannot ignore the fact I am prejudice. I just cannot accept it.

    But lets bring the arguement further. If 2 couples of equal stature as in sound in mind and body are going for adoption. One couple is gay one is "Straight" how do you define which would should get the child?

    Money?

    All that is left is moral judgement is this fair? Sometimes you positivly discriminate sometimes you negativly discriminate. Its got nothing to do with being christian!


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Aard: that depends on whether or not you believe that disagreement amounts to hatred. I don't consider being open to civil partnerships instead of marriage to be "homophobic".


  • #83
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Speak for yourself, I don't want my future children learning about Homosexual relationships in school.


    Theories are theories, you can't provide them as evidence to support your views.



    Again speak for yourself.

    And what if your future children or their peers are homosexual?

    Is it not better for it to be mentioned in school that not all couples are male-female, that not all children have to grow up to marry someone of the opposite sex. Surely it would be better for your child to know there was nothing wrong with them rather than think they were some kind of freak (at the same time educating children for who the issue does not directly apply to).

    And many gay people have known they were gay from very early childhood, an awareness of difference isn't a sexual awareness in a childs eyes! The nature of homosexuality does not need to be "adult" when discussed with children.


  • #84
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    ynotdu wrote: »
    I think it is both a common sense and a human rights issue.
    how dare a society prevent ANY two consenting adults who love each other from their wish to publicly express it through marridge?

    for children to be adopted by a gay couple is IMO a breach/betrayel of Their human rights as they cannot choose their parents and have no say.
    Their is no doubt that these children would be the subject of snide remarks throughout their childhood as things stand.

    children are born by and large by hetrosexual sex,it seems to be natures way of saying that a femine and masculine mix is best for balance.

    Harsh though it may sound to gay couples but would,nt adopting a child almost guarantee that they would get way above average hurts in their formative years?

    it is SO cruel to gay couples who have maternal/paternal instincts like everybody else,but i think it sadly is realism to say so.

    Eh a breach of human rights!!! what child gets to choose their parents either biological or adoptive?


  • #85
    anoisaris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭anoisaris


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Aard: I am doubtful, and I don't think we should be taking risks. I said in that thread also if you read earlier in it, that there were some journals confirming, and some journals going against such a view. Hence why I feel that it is best to keep supporting the traditional family that we can be confident about as opposed to other forms that we are currently in doubt about.

    It intrigues me that all the research that comments about the gender impact of either a mother and a father that had come previous to much of this research is now rendered obsolete. Could it be that a cultural bias is interfering in what we are trying to investigate?

    Weren't your cited studies in reference to absent fathers? That isn't a journal going against gay parenting, that's a separate issue. Did your studies focus on children with 2 fathers or make comparative studies with children in a family of two mothers?


  • #86
    Dr. Baltar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭Dr. Baltar


    Where as I am both pro gay marriage and pro gay adoption, I would just like to also state that I agree with IWasFrozen in regards to the education of young children about adult relationships both hetero and homosexual.

    It is not the purpose of the state to inform children of homosexuality, sexuality and sex.

    Granted 12+ year olds should be taught "the facts of life" in order to prevent STIs and Teenage pregnancy but any younger I don't think that it is appropriate.

    As for the gay adoption argument: I personally believe that if the adoptee is to have two loving parents then by all means it should be allowed.

    I would also like to give this example: An orphan in a third world country.
    That orphan would be so much better off being raised in a homosexual environment in Ireland than it would living in a third world country.


  • #87
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    anoisaris wrote: »
    Eh a breach of human rights!!! what child gets to choose their parents either biological or adoptive?

    er nobody does,but in a case where there is almost certainty that a child will suffer abuse in society it is up to society to protect their human rights in advance.

    Gay people are first and foremost PEOPLE,their sexuality in an ideal world should be irrelevent,and as i said we are backward in not accepting gay marridge,THEIR human rights are very much undermined and the govt who allowed just a civil union should hang their head in shame,as should people who claim to be christian but are against it.

    gay people i imagine would know more than most what it is like to suffer at the hands of verbal and physical abuse,why they would want to risk their child being hurt this way is beyond me.

    i dont know what area other posters are living in but in my area at least the child would be savaged by their peers and others.


  • #88
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ynotdu wrote: »
    Gay people are first and foremost PEOPLE,their sexuality in an ideal world should be irrelevent,and as i said we are backward in not accepting gay marridge,THEIR human rights are very much undermined and the govt who allowed just a civil union should hang their head in shame,as should people who claim to be christian but are against it.

    Guilt tripping people isn't an effective form of argument. I personally do not feel any shame for being in opposition to gay marriage and being in favour of civil unions. I think it is the right thing to do.


  • #89
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Guilt tripping people isn't an effective form of argument. I personally do not feel any shame for being in opposition to gay marriage and being in favour of civil unions. I think it is the right thing to do.


    so you thought you would try guilt tripping me because i believe gay marriage should be allowed:confused:


  • #90
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ynotdu wrote: »
    so you thought you would try guilt tripping me because i believe gay marriage should be allowed:confused:

    I don't mind what your support, I'm open for discussion. I believe that traditional marriage is best, and if LGBT couples are dissatisfied with civil unions they should seek changes in the Civil Partnership Bill rather than seek a whole redefinition of marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't mind what your support, I'm open for discussion. I believe that traditional marriage is best, and if LGBT couples are dissatisfied with civil unions they should seek changes in the Civil Partnership Bill rather than seek a whole redefinition of marriage.

    by that i assume the catholic/christian version of marridge?

    the facts are that priests were allowed to marry up to around the 14th century.the reason it was stopped was because the widows and children of the priest inherited the home and surrounding land.
    the greedy goats in the vatican decided it was theirs by right.
    look what these *christians*turned the priesthood into by banning marriage:mad:


  • #92
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    Why does a discussion about Gay marriage on Boards always end up to be a discussion about Adoption. They are totally separate issues. I don't want to adopt yet i am not allow to marry because a few narrow minded people have a traditional view of family life. That tradition is long lost with many children already being raised without a mother and father.

    It is more or less on a par with saying "i am against a black and white couple marrying because they could have children who are coloured". Imagine the bullying they would get in school!!!.

    I think children would probably have more cop on that adults re this topic!


  • #93
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ynotdu wrote: »
    by that i assume the catholic/christian version of marridge?

    I don't mean any religious marriage, it could be a civil marriage, a Jewish marriage, an Islamic marriage.

    I mean the traditional family unit of mother / father / child. If marriage is going to be the basis of the family as written in the Constitution, I would want to make sure that as many children as possible were being raised by a mother and a father.
    ynotdu wrote: »
    the facts are that priests were allowed to marry up to around the 14th century.the reason it was stopped was because the widows and children of the priest inherited the home and surrounding land.
    the greedy goats in the vatican decided it was theirs by right.
    look what these *christians*turned the priesthood into by banning marriage:mad:

    Considering I am a non-Catholic, I couldn't agree with you more. Biblically pastors and bishops have the right of marriage. I believe the Catholic Church is mistaken on this.
    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Why does a discussion about Gay marriage on Boards always end up to be a discussion about Adoption. They are totally separate issues. I don't want to adopt yet i am not allow to marry because a few narrow minded people have a traditional view of family life. That tradition is long lost with many children already being raised without a mother and father.

    Adoption is the real crunch issue. When we are dealing with whether or not something should be legalised we generally check all possible impacts it could have.

    Just because something is "being lost" doesn't mean that one should not defend it, or at least aim to get some form of affirmative action in relation to it. I don't believe this is something I can be particularly liberal with.


  • #94
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    ynotdu wrote: »
    I think it is both a common sense and a human rights issue.
    how dare a society prevent ANY two consenting adults who love each other from their wish to publicly express it through marridge?

    for children to be adopted by a gay couple is IMO a breach/betrayel of Their human rights as they cannot choose their parents and have no say.
    Their is no doubt that these children would be the subject of snide remarks throughout their childhood as things stand.

    children are born by and large by hetrosexual sex,it seems to be natures way of saying that a femine and masculine mix is best for balance.

    Harsh though it may sound to gay couples but would,nt adopting a child almost guarantee that they would get way above average hurts in their formative years?

    it is SO cruel to gay couples who have maternal/paternal instincts like everybody else,but i think it sadly is realism to say so.

    Have to completely agree with you here.
    I totally for gay marriage but as previously mentioned you would have to allow them to adopt and like myself I am not for gay couples adopting
    Nature plays the major part here. It must be a hard pill to swallow for gay people to know they cannot naturally have children but its nature.
    A perfect balance for a child is a strong male and female in their family. Mam and dad. This has to be a priority choosing for an adoption council.
    It gives the child the best possible chance to a healthy social and family life.
    Gay people need to stop thinking about what they want and think about the life of child.
    That also applies to hetrosexuals too who want kids but cant bring a child up in the best possible way.


  • #95
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Why does a discussion about Gay marriage on Boards always end up to be a discussion about Adoption. They are totally separate issues. I don't want to adopt yet i am not allow to marry because a few narrow minded people have a traditional view of family life. That tradition is long lost with many children already being raised without a mother and father.

    It is more or less on a par with saying "i am against a black and white couple marrying because they could have children who are coloured". Imagine the bullying they would get in school!!!.

    I think children would probably have more cop on that adults re this topic!

    From what I can gather if gay marriage was introduced you would have adoption rights just like a hetrosexual couple which alot of people have a problem with. This is one of the main issues that gay marriage isnt introduced and so of course its going to crop up in threads.


  • #96
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Cjoe wrote: »
    It must be a hard pill to swallow for gay people to know they cannot naturally have children but its nature.
    Gay people can have children; just not with their partner. I could easily find a surrogate mother, and have a child. My husband and I would raise that child. If I died, then under current legislation my husband would have no legal right to be the child's guardian. Is this fair on the child?
    Cjoe wrote: »
    A perfect balance for a child is a strong male and female in their family. Mam and dad. This has to be a priority choosing for an adoption council.
    Were an opposite-sex couple the priority, would you agree with same-sex couples adopting if there were no other suitable opposite-sex couples?
    Cjoe wrote: »
    It gives the child the best possible chance to a healthy social and family life.
    That is pure speculation, not to mention entirely unquantifiable.
    Cjoe wrote: »
    Gay people need to stop thinking about what they want and think about the life of child.
    You are assuming that children do not want gay parents.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    Aard wrote: »
    Gay people can have children; just not with their partner. I could easily find a surrogate mother, and have a child. My husband and I would raise that child. If I died, then under current legislation my husband would have no legal right to be the child's guardian. Is this fair on the child?


    Were an opposite-sex couple the priority, would you agree with same-sex couples adopting if there were no other suitable opposite-sex couples?

    That is pure speculation, not to mention entirely unquantifiable.


    You are assuming that children do not want gay parents.


    No its not. The legislation is all over the place and contradicts itself.
    You should absolutley be able to leave the child with your husband if you already have one. Its in the childs interests.

    I would yes definetly. But as I said priority should go to hetrosexual couples once they are suitable.

    No im not. Im saying as a person who wants to be a parent are you making the best descion for the child you may adopt? Weigh up the pros and cons for the child. The potential abuse they may get for being an adoptive child of a homosexual couple, their upbringing without a male or female figure in their family life. As I said already every couple (hetrosexual and homosexual) should think about the child first. Can you give the child as healthy a life in every aspect as possible.

    Sure you can argue for an against there is plenty of information to back up both claims. I beileve it is healthier though to have a traditional family unit.
    To not have a father or mother means you are missing out on one or the other expierence. It might not be detremental to your life in the future but in general it is positive expierence and one which is invaluable. Having a decent mother and father means you have expierence of both male and female role models. It is obviously a good thing expierence for later life.


  • #98
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Could you please address the points I've made, before bringing new information into the discussion.


  • #99
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Why does a discussion about Gay marriage on Boards always end up to be a discussion about Adoption. They are totally separate issues. I don't want to adopt yet i am not allow to marry because a few narrow minded people have a traditional view of family life. That tradition is long lost with many children already being raised without a mother and father.

    It is more or less on a par with saying "i am against a black and white couple marrying because they could have children who are coloured". Imagine the bullying they would get in school!!!.

    I think children would probably have more cop on that adults re this topic!

    I initially asked that people left adoption as a seperate issue, but it became a topic of discussion fairly quickly.
    Problem is that technically, if gay couples were given the same marriage rights as straight couples, they should be legally allowed to adopt.


  • #100
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    It comes back to adoption because gay marriage is about equality, and you can't be less equal than a straight couple. It's full rights, including adoption, or discrimination. Either or, there is no half way, which goes back to my original ignorance and/or religious hatred point.


  • #101
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    It comes back to adoption because gay marriage is about equality, and you can't be less equal than a straight couple. It's full rights, including adoption, or discrimination. Either or, there is no half way, which goes back to my original ignorance and/or religious hatred point.

    I don't think we have established if it is about equality. It is only about equality if you consider a relationship between a man and a woman to be the same thing as two of the same gender. I personally don't.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement