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
Civil Marriage Protest! 9th August!
Options
Comments
-
It's an arbitrary issue now, thank goodness. Isn't progress a wonderful thing?2) Two black parents in a marriage still have both a mother and a father. Race is an arbitrary issue.
What makes for ideal is highly debatable. And do you think limiting the rights of the perhaps "less than ideal" equates to encouraging the creation of more perfect families? How does that work, exactly?I personally think that we need to encourage the ideal more than the others.
Denying gay people their right to equality does not create less gay people.0 -
you don't assume that they are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships, but you DO assume that they aren't. Have you ever been in one? I'd say you need to have been in both at some point to even start to be able to make a comment like that. As it happens, I have, and I can tell you they were bizzarely similar.
I think that relationships between two of the same gender are different in nature to those of differing genders. The factor of the biological family being only possible with the latter is a factor for me. I feel children should have access to both of their biological parents irrespective of what family structure one is in and indeed that both parents should be obligated to support said children.
As for being in both. One doesn't really need to be in both to determine that there are differences in how homosexual relationships would work and how heterosexual relationships would work. This is why I support marriage and civil unions to respect such difference.So is it just the big M word that you take issue with? Why shouldn't I be able to enter into a contract with another adult to become a member of my family? If I have children (and I do have a functioning set of genitals), why shouldn't it be my right to say who looks after them if i die?
I think if such a family structure were to take place. The biological father would have to be guaranteed rights to contact his children at any stage on a regular basis, and indeed one should be obliged to. That would be a potential compromise I would be willing to reach. However, not offering the child this chance isn't acceptable in my opinion.
I think if one is the biological parent of their children, they should entitle the other biological parent to custody of their children after death. Infact I'd see that as being only fair.0 -
1) This assumes that homosexuality is biologically determined like race. This is highly debatable.
If this is the case, then what factors in your life made you straight?
The human mind is the product of an organ, an organ whose properties are determined by genes. There is certainly a major biological component involved in sexuality and I would disagree that this is debatable. Are there other factors involved besides genes? Almost certainly; the mind's workings are far beyond our current levels of knowledge. However, at no stage in my life did I ever choose to be attracted to men nor was I encouraged to do so by anyone else. I am gay for the same reasons you are straight. You just are. You can't explain it; it just is a part of who you are.However, not offering the child this chance isn't acceptable in my opinion.
I don't think anyone has suggested denying a child access to their biological father.I think if one is the biological parent of their children, they should entitle the other biological parent to custody of their children after death. Infact I'd see that as being only fair.
Take a situation where, say, two women have raised a child together and one dies when the child is 12. The biological father has never had or wanted to have anything to do with the family. Do you think custody should transfer to the biological father and not the women who has spent 10 years raising the child? Surely, the bond between the child and the other parent that has been created is far greater and far more important than any biological connection?0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 64900
Carrying on. I'm aware that there are many less than ideal family structures, I personally think that we need to encourage the ideal more than the others.
And your idea of encouragement is to make the others untenable and put the children in them at extreme risk should one parent/'parent' die/leave, then?
I don't see how you can possibly reconcile that with wanting what you think is best for children.0 -
If this is the case, then what factors in your life made you straight?
I don't know what determines sexuality. I don't know, and indeed nobody knows. There is no concrete scientific evidence to confirm that sexuality is determined by genetics. I don't feel the need to assume what I don't know.
Infact I need to touch up on another point here:MYOB wrote:There is no "decide" about it. You're gay or your not, you don't decide to be gay. I didn't chose to live a brown-eyed 'lifestyle', or chose to live a tall 'lifestyle' either.
Thanks for strawmanning my post. I personally don't know how sexuality is detected so it would be a leap to suggest that one decides to be gay.
Luckily for me that isn't what I said:I would have to accept it if my child decided to either reject Christianity, or decide to live a gay lifestyle.
I never said "decide to be gay", I said "decide to live a gay lifestyle". It is one thing to be homosexual, it is another to live a homosexual lifestyle.
However you also jump to the conclusion of assuming that sexuality is genetic, in the same fashion as having brown eyes is. We have no conclusive evidence to suggest that this is true.MYOB wrote:Also, "love the sinner, hate the sin" as you claim to support is an impossibility. If you hate a fundamental, unchangeable aspect of a person, you hate the person. You can't fluff around that issue either.
So you're telling me that you've never had a disagreement with a family member? Interesting.
As for "unchangeable". Since we do not know if sexuality is genetically determined or not, we also do not know whether or not it cannot be changed. I don't know, and I have no need to assume the answers until these questions until they are verified.
I think I can like people for who they are but yet disagree with ones sexuality irrespective of how you tell me that this is utterly impossible. Reasonable people, can have reasonable disagreements.The human mind is the product of an organ, an organ whose properties are determined by genes. There is certainly a major biological component involved in sexuality and I would disagree that this is debatable. Are there other factors involved besides genes? Almost certainly; the mind's workings are far beyond our current levels of knowledge. However, at no stage in my life did I ever choose to be attracted to men nor was I encouraged to do so by anyone else. I am gay for the same reasons you are straight. You just are. You can't explain it; it just is a part of who you are.
It isn't certain that sexuality is genetically determined even amongst scientists. This is where I disagree with you. We have no evidence that genes determine sexuality and that's why I have difficulty with that hypothesis. I am open to the possibility, but I do not feel the need to assume.
The minds workings are certainly beyond our knowledge, and this is precisely the reason why I don't feel the need to assume things about it.
You then finish saying, "You can't explain it, it it just a part of who you are". If we can't explain it, why do you jump to conclusions? That's what I don't understand.Take a situation where, say, two women have raised a child together and one dies when the child is 12. The biological father has never had or wanted to have anything to do with the family. Do you think custody should transfer to the biological father and not the women who has spent 10 years raising the child? Surely, the bond between the child and the other parent that has been created is far greater and far more important than any biological connection?
I think I would feel that the biological father should be given joint custody with the other partner in that situation. The biological connection is of crucial importance and shouldn't be denied.
Mind you, it is situations like these which cause me to think that the biological family is the best way to organise family.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64900
I never said "decide to be gay", I said "decide to live a gay lifestyle". It is one thing to be homosexual, it is another to live a homosexual lifestyle.
Define 'homosexual lifestyle' for me. There is no such concept, no two homosexuals are identical.So you're telling me that you've never had a disagreement with a family member? Interesting.
I've never hated a fundamental, unchangeable (for that is what it is, no matter what you try to claim) aspect of who they are!I think I can like people for who they are but yet disagree with ones sexuality irrespective of how you tell me that this is utterly impossible. Reasonable people, can have reasonable disagreements.
And irrational people can wrap something up as a disagreement when it isn't.It isn't certain that sexuality is genetically determined even amongst scientists. This is where I disagree with you. We have no evidence that genes determine sexuality and that's why I have difficulty with that hypothesis. I am open to the possibility, but I do not feel the need to assume.
Its generally accepted that is by those that don't have an ulterior motive for claiming it isn'tI think I would feel that the biological father should be given joint custody with the other partner in that situation. The biological connection is of crucial importance and shouldn't be denied.
Even when they have never, ever had contact for the previous 12 years and have absolutely no interest in having contact?Mind you, it is situations like these which cause me to think that the biological family is the best way to organise family.
And unfortunately for you, that doesn't always happen and there is no way you can make it always happen. However, we can ensure that children who are not being raised by both biological parents are as protected as possible - and you oppose this.
As a final note - it is blatantly clear that you are opposed to gay marriage because your religion tells you to be. You can fluff all you want, claim you're for equality but only if its equal-but-different and go on about genetics and similar - but you're doing this for religious reasons. Nothing more. Please stop pretending otherwise.0 -
Define 'homosexual lifestyle' for me. There is no such concept, no two homosexuals are identical.
Let me see. There is a difference between being attracted to people of the same gender, and engaging in homosexual acts? Yes, or no?I've never hated a fundamental, unchangeable (for that is what it is, no matter what you try to claim) aspect of who they are!
It isn't my fault that you aren't willing to consider that we actually do not know anything conclusive about whether or not homosexuality is genetic, and whether or not one can not continue having homosexual attractions.
If you are closed minded, that's your prerogative. I'm willing to consider all possibilities, and I am willing to say I am wrong if evidence ever comes to light contrary to my opinion on the issue.
There is no point in continuing a discussion if you aren't willing to consider alternative viewpoints on the issue.
Funnily enough, you claimed that you did not regard disagreement on sexuality as homophobia, now you have altered your viewpoint implying that one cannot disagree with homosexuality without hating them in extension. Luckily I can regard this as a mere attempt to stifle debate.And irrational people can wrap something up as a disagreement when it isn't.
It depends what you consider to be irrational. I consider concerns about the family unit to be rather rational indeed. Again, implying that I am homophobic without actually going so far as to say so.
Given my opposition to violence towards homosexuals, or hate speech towards homosexuals, I don't feel this can be argued.Its generally accepted that is by those that don't have an ulterior motive for claiming it isn't
Again, to stifle debate. Even some scientists who are homosexual have conceded that their findings should not be abused:LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
I don't feel the need to assume that sexuality is genetically determined when this is not factual scientifically. I am willing to be proven wrong, and for people to say that we can know the sexuality is genetically determined.Even when they have never, ever had contact for the previous 12 years and have absolutely no interest in having contact?
Yes, I believe they should be respected as the biological father of their children.And unfortunately for you, that doesn't always happen and there is no way you can make it always happen. However, we can ensure that children who are not being raised by both biological parents are as protected as possible - and you oppose this.
I don't oppose facilitating children in families with both a mother and a father. Hence why I find it absurd that you would even bring this up.As a final note - it is blatantly clear that you are opposed to gay marriage because your religion tells you to be. You can fluff all you want, claim you're for equality but only if its equal-but-different and go on about genetics and similar - but you're doing this for religious reasons. Nothing more. Please stop pretending otherwise.
If I was opposed solely on religious grounds, I wouldn't be against any law on the issue. If I were I would support the criminalisation of homosexual acts. Yet, I don't advocate this.
Likewise, you can accuse me of "fluff" as much as you want, you can also accuse me of ulterior motives if you wish. I would prefer if you would actually stick on the topic however.
If you are waiting for a "gotcha" moment to prove that I have some form of hatred towards homosexuals, you'll be waiting a long time.0 -
So you don't hate homosexuals but you are disappointed when they do not restrain themsevles from an active homosexual lifesytle and from enguaging in homosexual acts?0
-
So you don't hate homosexuals but you are disappointed when they do not restrain themsevles from an active homosexual lifesytle and from enguaging in homosexual acts?
Read the context of my original quote:
I said I would respect the choice of my (hypothetical) child. I would be disappointed, but I would never stop caring. So no, I don't hate anyone, I don't see why I would. The world is already a bad enough place without more people hating eachother than already do.I would have to accept it if my child decided to either reject Christianity, or decide to live a gay lifestyle.
This has nothing to do with anyone's conjugal rights or prohibiting them.
Disagreement doesn't constitute hatred.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64900
Let me see. There is a difference between being attracted to people of the same gender, and engaging in homosexual acts? Yes, or no?
The difference is celibacy, exactly the same as it is for heterosexuals. The two go hand in hand. The term "homosexual lifestyle" is generally used to imply something sinister and I doubt you were using it in an unloaded manner.It isn't my fault that you aren't willing to consider that we actually do not know anything conclusive about whether or not homosexuality is genetic, and whether or not one can not continue having homosexual attractions.
If you are closed minded, that's your prerogative. I'm willing to consider all possibilities, and I am willing to say I am wrong if evidence ever comes to light contrary to my opinion on the issue.
There is no point in continuing a discussion if you aren't willing to consider alternative viewpoints on the issue.
Masses of evidence has come to light and you chose to ignore it. You are the one that is closed minded and unwilling to accept alternative viewpoints. We know conclusively enough to convince everyone except those who have a need to claim it isn't.Funnily enough, you claimed that you did not regard disagreement on sexuality as homophobia, now you have altered your viewpoint implying that one cannot disagree with homosexuality without hating them in extension. Luckily I can regard this as a mere attempt to stifle debate.
I don't regard disagreement as homophobia. I also don't regard 90% of what you classify as disagreement as being actual disagreement.It depends what you consider to be irrational. I consider concerns about the family unit to be rather rational indeed. Again, implying that I am homophobic without actually going so far as to say so.
My accusation of irrationality was about you classifying everything you say as a 'disagreement' when the vast majority of them are far beyond a disagreement. But you've convinced yourself its a disagreement because that sounds far more acceptable than "human rights issue".Given my opposition to violence towards homosexuals, or hate speech towards homosexuals, I don't feel this can be argued.
You provide absolute support for inequality. It can be argued - and I think you've lost by providing much evidence of your support for inequality.Again, to stifle debate. Even some scientists who are homosexual have conceded that their findings should not be abused:
About a valid as quoting Mark SimpsonI don't feel the need to assume that sexuality is genetically determined when this is not factual scientifically. I am willing to be proven wrong, and for people to say that we can know the sexuality is genetically determined.
It was factually significant for you some posts ago, and now it isn't?Yes, I believe they should be respected as the biological father of their children.
And I believe this is the worst idea you've ever had. "Hello child, you don't know me - I wanked in to a test tube 12 years ago and now I'm controlling half your life"I don't oppose facilitating children in families with both a mother and a father. Hence why I find it absurd that you would even bring this up.
I bring it up as you specifically oppose providing any protection for children in same sex couplings.If I was opposed solely on religious grounds, I wouldn't be against any law on the issue. If I were I would support the criminalisation of homosexual acts. Yet, I don't advocate this.
Likewise, you can accuse me of "fluff" as much as you want, you can also accuse me of ulterior motives if you wish. I would prefer if you would actually stick on the topic however.
If you are waiting for a "gotcha" moment to prove that I have some form of hatred towards homosexuals, you'll be waiting a long time.
You don't advocate that because it doesn't exist here and now. If this was 1992 you *would* oppose decriminalisation. You want to protect your status quo, your oppoisition is entirely on religious grounds and the sooner you stop pretending its not the better for all of us. You want to "protect" your religious idea of a family unit at the cost of refusing protections to others. You want to "protect" your religious definition of marriage.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jakkass, imagine this hypothetical situation. I am assuming you will entertain it, because your have previously made a hypothetical story about your hypothetical future child.
Your daughter is 30. She's gay, and in a long-term relationship with another woman. They go to a sperm bank, and decide that the other woman will be impregnated. Fast forward, your daughter is 40 and has a 10-year-old son. The other woman is in a car-crash and dies. Because they were not married, your daughter has no legal custody over the child. The child is put into foster care.
How would you feel then?0 -
Can you list the differences, and why those differences are such that children apparently need to be kept away from the homosexual relationship - Without mentioning your preference for biological parents.Jakkass wrote:One doesn't really need to be in both to determine that there are differences in how homosexual relationships would work and how heterosexual relationships would work. This is why I support marriage and civil unions to respect such difference.
If you had the chance to vote against single heterosexual parents adopting, would you?No, it demonstrates that I believe that children are best raised with both a mother and a father.
You keep saying you overwhelmingly encourage kids stay with their biological parents, but this isn't the issue and this isn't the question being posed to you.My issues begin when we discuss the raising of children in that equation. I believe that children have a right to both a mother and a father and I believe that it is important for children. This is the reason why I overwhelmingly support the biological family first and foremost, and the reason why I think the State should encourage it.
If someone asks me would I be okay with allowing white people adopting black child, I can answer that I am overwhelmingly in support of a child remaining with their natural parents and that I would do everything to encourage this. But if I answer in this way I am not addressing the question, but what is implicit in that kind of response is very apparent - that I do not support inter-ratial adoption and for whatever reason, I am tactfully avoiding having to explain why.
Can you elaborate on the difference between the two. And define a homosexual lifestyle.I never said "decide to be gay", I said "decide to live a gay lifestyle". It is one thing to be homosexual, it is another to live a homosexual lifestyle.I think I can like people for who they are but yet disagree with ones sexuality irrespective of how you tell me that this is utterly impossible. Reasonable people, can have reasonable disagreements.
I can disagree with someones skin tone and sound very reasonable about it. Maybe it is genetic but research indicates there can quite often also be an environmental cause. I don't particularly agree with them being brown, but I'm sure they're nice people
But the fact I even have to get so far as to 'lay blame' as to the reasons for a person being that way, indicates an unspoken proposition that they 'ought not be that way' in the first place, or at least that they should or could have been something else. It is non-acceptance of a reality that no human has willingly created, and it is discrimination.
I'm sure there are plenty of areas in your own life where you jump to conclusions about things you don't understand. If you can have the humility to relate to those areas in your own life you can easily relate to them in another person.You then finish saying, "You can't explain it, it it just a part of who you are". If we can't explain it, why do you jump to conclusions? That's what I don't understand.I think I would feel that the biological father should be given joint custody with the other partner in that situation. The biological connection is of crucial importance and shouldn't be denied.
Mind you, it is situations like these which cause me to think that the biological family is the best way to organise family.
Once again someone paints you a scenario where the biological family simply does not exist in any functional way.
This is a reality in many situations, and you once again refuse to accept it. If you look through how you've replied to everyone on this thread relating to this issue you do the exact same thing. You're actually avoiding the issue. What are you so afraid to say?0 -
Jakkass wrote:You then finish saying, "You can't explain it, it it just a part of who you are". If we can't explain it, why do you jump to conclusions? That's what I don't understand.
I'm not jumping to conclusions. I may not be able to explain why I'm gay but I know that I am. I also know that I made no decision to become gay. Why the hell would I choose that? So that people can discriminate against me?!
My point is that discriminating against people by using things that they have no control over is wrong.
Also, if it turned out that being gay was in fact some sort of choice or mental condition, what would your attitude be towards gay marriage and gay people in general?
I disagree. If the well being of the child is your motivation for your views on families with gay parents, then why do you insist on a connection that is arbitrary?Jakkass wrote:The biological connection is of crucial importance and shouldn't be denied.
Adopted kids are raised by parents just as effectively as non-adopted kids. Just because someone has a biological connection with a child doesn't make them an effective parent of that child.
Biological parents should have rights of access of course, but if they want nothing to do with the child or were just a sperm donor, then they shouldn't be forced into custody. That situation just works out bad for both parent and child. The parent will not be an effective parent and the child will have a stranger forced into their lives during a traumatic period.0 -
Jakkass wrote:Let me see. There is a difference between being attracted to people of the same gender, and engaging in homosexual acts? Yes, or no?
What is it about homosexual acts that children should be kept away from people 'engaged in them'?0 -
The difference is celibacy, exactly the same as it is for heterosexuals. The two go hand in hand. The term "homosexual lifestyle" is generally used to imply something sinister and I doubt you were using it in an unloaded manner.
Now you are making assumptions behind the term "homosexual lifestyle". Do you realise I also used the term "Christian lifestyle". I must consider both of them "sinister" then due to my use of the term lifestyle in respect to both.Masses of evidence has come to light and you chose to ignore it. You are the one that is closed minded and unwilling to accept alternative viewpoints. We know conclusively enough to convince everyone except those who have a need to claim it isn't.
Do we have proof that there is a gene that determines sexuality, or that sexuality is determined by genetics? Yes or no?I don't regard disagreement as homophobia. I also don't regard 90% of what you classify as disagreement as being actual disagreement.
Be honest with me. Based on my posts excluding whatever ulterior motives you may feel I have, am I homophobic? Yes, or no, and a solid reason why.My accusation of irrationality was about you classifying everything you say as a 'disagreement' when the vast majority of them are far beyond a disagreement. But you've convinced yourself its a disagreement because that sounds far more acceptable than "human rights issue".
Your accusation on rationality falls on deaf ears. It's quite reasonable to have concerns over dramatic changes in family structure and it's effect on childhood development. It's also a reasonable concern to consider that children have rights to both a mother and a father.You provide absolute support for inequality. It can be argued - and I think you've lost by providing much evidence of your support for inequality.
I don't think I've lost anything by supporting children being raised in a traditional family with both a mother and a father or in my respect of the biological family. I value the family a lot, and I think we should be wary before making radical decisions concerning it.About a valid as quoting Mark Simpson
I'm starting to feel that you are rejecting material because you aren't satisfied in hearing it rather than basing such a rejection on it's merits.
I fully realise that my views are offensive, I won't be retracting them though. People have to learn to deal with offence in a mature manner instead of flying accusations that people hate people for disagreeing with whether or not homosexual marriages should be legalised. It's nothing but mere stifling of debate to pursue ones aims.
Whether we like it or not, it is very much a disagreement despite your claims to the contrary.It was factually significant for you some posts ago, and now it isn't?
I need clarification on this. My point of view has always been that we don't know whether or not sexuality is genetically determined. We don't know. I don't deny or affirm such a view.
I've already distinguished between being of a certain sexuality and living a lifestyle according to that sexuality.And I believe this is the worst idea you've ever had. "Hello child, you don't know me - I wanked in to a test tube 12 years ago and now I'm controlling half your life"
Personally I believe the retreat from the biological family to have been troublesome in Western society for the last few decades. Encouraging biological parents to be involved in childrens lives would be a progressive step in my book.
To claim this isn't a disagreement is also absurd. Our differences concerning the importance of biological parents being involved in a child's life are also apparent.I bring it up as you specifically oppose providing any protection for children in same sex couplings.
I remain confused on this one. I had thought that the Civil Partnership Bill dealt with issues of custody in the event of the deceased passing. If someone could clarify this it would be much appreciated. I do believe that the remaining biological parent being involved is also crucial.You don't advocate that because it doesn't exist here and now. If this was 1992 you *would* oppose decriminalisation. You want to protect your status quo, your oppoisition is entirely on religious grounds and the sooner you stop pretending its not the better for all of us.
Making assumptions again. Are you interested in discussing my actual views or strawmanning me in an effort to stifle discussion.
I would raise this as a concern to the moderation to include in any future charter. Unwarranted accusations of homophobia shouldn't be tolerated in this forum.
I'm just about fed up of accusations of pretence. I hold Judeo-Christian beliefs, so what?
I believe in church - state separation in respect of the church and in respect of the State. No church or religion should have any impact in direct decision making in a polity where people of many different faiths or none at all exist. I've made that clear. I've also used secular argument in this forum for the most part. If one is going to continue making such accusations, I think you should back it up. Otherwise leave them aside.0 -
What is it about homosexual acts that children should be kept away from people 'engaged in them'?
I'd advise you to read my original post again. I have no issue with people making their own decisions on what conjugal rights their exercise. I have moral disagreement with some of the acts that some people may choose. I've made that clear. My point wasn't about the law in that case.
I was referring to how I would feel if my child decided to lead a gay lifestyle.
As I would love for any hypothetical child of mine to lead a Christian lifestyle, and live according to Christian morality, I would admittedly be disappointed if my hypothetical child went down this path. I would express no contempt if this were the case.
Hopefully that clears up my point more. It wasn't concerning the law, it was concerning my personal ethics.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64900
Now you are making assumptions behind the term "homosexual lifestyle". Do you realise I also used the term "Christian lifestyle". I must consider both of them "sinister" then due to my use of the term lifestyle in respect to both.
Just as you make assumptions behind what I write.Do we have proof that there is a gene that determines sexuality, or that sexuality is determined by genetics? Yes or no?
We have aboslute evidence its biological. We have sufficient evidence to suggest its genetic. I find a religious person asking for definitive proof to be the most ironic concept in existence...Be honest with me. Based on my posts excluding whatever ulterior motives you may feel I have, am I homophobic? Yes, or no, and a solid reason why.
Going on the standard definition, no. However, you are clearly opposed to equal rights.Your accusation on rationality falls on deaf ears. It's quite reasonable to have concerns over dramatic changes in family structure and it's effect on childhood development. It's also a reasonable concern to consider that children have rights to both a mother and a father.
Thats STILL not what I was saying was irrational! Are you Michael Howard in disguise?I don't think I've lost anything by supporting children being raised in a traditional family with both a mother and a father or in my respect of the biological family. I value the family a lot, and I think we should be wary before making radical decisions concerning it.
Again, you're not actually replying to what I wrote. As goes making radical decisions - the families in question already exist - and you can't change that.I'm starting to feel that you are rejecting material because you aren't satisfied in hearing it rather than basing such a rejection on it's merits.
As opposed to you who rejects the vast weight of evidence in favour of a few, in some cases those who are known to be diagramatically opposed to the mainstream? Give me a break here.I fully realise that my views are offensive, I won't be retracting them though. People have to learn to deal with offence in a mature manner instead of flying accusations that people hate people for disagreeing with whether or not homosexual marriages should be legalised. It's nothing but mere stifling of debate to pursue ones aims.
Whether we like it or not, it is very much a disagreement despite your claims to the contrary.
You're still sticking to this delusion that what there is is a 'disagreement'. You are opposed to equal rights, end of.I need clarification on this. My point of view has always been that we don't know whether or not sexuality is genetically determined. We don't know. I don't deny or affirm such a view.
You need clarification on your own posts now? It was you that brought up it being genetic as important, than posts later you claim it isn't!I've already distinguished between being of a certain sexuality and living a lifestyle according to that sexuality.
Except you haven't, actually. You've distinguished between being celibate and not, that is all.Personally I believe the retreat from the biological family to have been troublesome in Western society for the last few decades. Encouraging biological parents to be involved in childrens lives would be a progressive step in my book.
To claim this isn't a disagreement is also absurd. Our differences concerning the importance of biological parents being involved in a child's life are also apparent.
How on earth can you not see involving a formerly totally distant biological parent in a childs life after a bereavement as anything butharmful?I remain confused on this one. I had thought that the Civil Partnership Bill dealt with issues of custody in the event of the deceased passing. If someone could clarify this it would be much appreciated. I do believe that the remaining biological parent being involved is also crucial.
It doesn't, at all.Making assumptions again. Are you interested in discussing my actual views or strawmanning me in an effort to stifle discussion.
I would raise this as a concern to the moderation to include in any future charter. Unwarranted accusations of homophobia shouldn't be tolerated in this forum.
I'm just about fed up of accusations of pretence. I hold Judeo-Christian beliefs, so what?
I believe in church - state separation in respect of the church and in respect of the State. No church or religion should have any impact in direct decision making in a polity where people of many different faiths or none at all exist. I've made that clear. I've also used secular argument in this forum for the most part. If one is going to continue making such accusations, I think you should back it up. Otherwise leave them aside.
I'm interested in you 'coming out' (if you pardon the pun) from behind your facade. You are opposed solely on religious grounds and this is blatantly clear.0 -
I'm not jumping to conclusions. I may not be able to explain why I'm gay but I know that I am. I also know that I made no decision to become gay. Why the hell would I choose that? So that people can discriminate against me?!
I think you are jumping to conclusions. Scientifically we don't know whether or not sexuality is genetically determined. Nobody knows and we shouldn't pretend we do.
Claiming that somebody is a homophobe because they do not know whether or not sexuality is genetically determined is ridiculous.My point is that discriminating against people by using things that they have no control over is wrong.
Every human being is entitled to marriage, the issue revolves around what marriage is. Marriage in Ireland is the union between a man and a woman. Civil unions will be the union between two of the same gender. Every human being is also entitled a civil union. I have yet to see the discrimination.Also, if it turned out that being gay was in fact some sort of choice or mental condition, what would your attitude be towards gay marriage and gay people in general?
I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. I don't know how sexuality is determined and hypothetical situations don't serve for realistic discussions.
My opinion of homosexual people is no different from any other. I don't feel a need to categorise people based on what sexual orientation they are. People are people irrespective of their sexuality. I suspect that MYOB will regard it as fluff that I insist on telling the truth in this case, but I don't care.I disagree. If the well being of the child is your motivation for your views on families with gay parents, then why do you insist on a connection that is arbitrary?
Please elaborate on this point.Adopted kids are raised by parents just as effectively as non-adopted kids. Just because someone has a biological connection with a child doesn't make them an effective parent of that child.
If you read earlier I believe that both fathers and mothers have distinctive things to offer a child in their development. I don't believe that a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father.Biological parents should have rights of access of course, but if they want nothing to do with the child or were just a sperm donor, then they shouldn't be forced into custody. That situation just works out bad for both parent and child. The parent will not be an effective parent and the child will have a stranger forced into their lives during a traumatic period.
Sperm donors should have rights to be involved in their childrens lives. I don't think "just a sperm donor" is a reasonable objection. That child has inherited an equal amount of chromosones from the mother as it has from the father.
Both should have custody I feel. Of course whether or not one is willing will have to come into it.
I don't feel referring to the childs actual father as a "stranger" is helpful. It is possible for a child to get to know ones father at any stage.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64900
One more thing Jakkass - you never answered my question about how you can reconcile claiming to utterly support protecting family units with being specifically and totally opposed to protecting certain family units which already exist. Protecting these does not, in any way remove protection from other existing ones.
I will ignore any response that waffles on about protecting biological parents, as that is not answering my question.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64900
-
Advertisement
-
I am highly confused by all this, but I do have one question: Why would you be disappointed if your child "decided to live a gay lifestyle"? I'm gay, but would not be upset if my child "decided" to live a straight lifestyle. What's there to be disappointed about?0
-
I'd advise you to read my original post again. I have no issue with people making their own decisions on what conjugal rights their exercise. I have moral disagreement with some of the acts that some people may choose. I've made that clear. My point wasn't about the law in that case.
I was referring to how I would feel if my child decided to lead a gay lifestyle.
As I would love for any hypothetical child of mine to lead a Christian lifestyle, and live according to Christian morality, I would admittedly be disappointed if my hypothetical child went down this path. I would express no contempt if this were the case.
Hopefully that clears up my point more. It wasn't concerning the law, it was concerning my personal ethics.
I understand that it's regarding your personal ethics, and that's why I'm asking you the question - but it's a bit self deceiving to believe your personal ideas of morality are not affecting your view on same-sex equality in this discussion.
Could you also reply to my other post please?0 -
I don't think scientists are as agnostic towards this issue as you seem to think, but I admit there is still some debate on the issue.I think you are jumping to conclusions. Scientifically we don't know whether or not sexuality is genetically determined. Nobody knows and we shouldn't pretend we do.
However, my point is that homosexuality was not a choice for me, I did not choose to be gay. And as such, I feel that it is unfair to treat me differently because of this.
I didn't claim you were a homophobe. Someone afraid of gay people is hardly likely to be posting on a forum for gay people!Claiming that somebody is a homophobe because they do not know whether or not sexuality is genetically determined is ridiculous.
What irritates most people about this attitude is this treating marriage and civil unions separately is a "separate, but equal" situation. This implies that gay people are somehow inferior to straight people and not entitled to the same treatment. You may not think this personally, but such a situation implies it.Every human being is entitled to marriage, the issue revolves around what marriage is. Marriage in Ireland is the union between a man and a woman. Civil unions will be the union between two of the same gender. Every human being is also entitled a civil union. I have yet to see the discrimination.
Also, it is discrimination as you are treating people differently on the basis of their sexual orientation.
On the other hand, if both gays and straights have the same rights in relation to unions, but just the name is different, then your argument seems childish and petty.I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. I don't know how sexuality is determined and hypothetical situations don't serve for realistic discussions.
My opinion of homosexual people is no different from any other. I don't feel a need to categorise people based on what sexual orientation they are. People are people irrespective of their sexuality. I suspect that MYOB will regard it as fluff that I insist on telling the truth in this case, but I don't care.
It isn't relevant, but I am just genuinely curious to hear your opinions on it.
Also, I am glad to see that you understand that people are not categorised by their sexuality. People on both sides of the debate are guilty of this. However, if your opinion of us is no different to others, then why do you insist we be treated differently?
I'm asking on what basis you are insisting that biological connections are paramount to all others. You say that they are an ideal. I can understand this to a degree, but do you not consider that there are many, many cases (not even involving gay people) where this is just not the case? The biological parents are, unfortunately, not always the best parents for a child.Please elaborate on this point.
I can understand your opinion, but, just as you insisted on evidence that homosexuality is genetically controlled, i must insist that you provide evidence that a man cannot replace a mother and vice versa. I direct you to these videos which show that gay parents can create a family unit, identical to straight parents: http://www.youtube.com/depfoxIf you read earlier I believe that both fathers and mothers have distinctive things to offer a child in their development. I don't believe that a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father.
Chromosomes have no bearing on someone's raising of a child. Again, I am just questioning why you think that just because someone gave half their genetic material to someone else that makes them the best parent for a child.Sperm donors should have rights to be involved in their childrens lives. I don't think "just a sperm donor" is a reasonable objection. That child has inherited an equal amount of chromosones from the mother as it has from the father.
Both should have custody I feel. Of course whether or not one is willing will have to come into it.
I don't feel referring to the childs actual father as a "stranger" is helpful. It is possible for a child to get to know ones father at any stage.0 -
We have aboslute evidence its biological. We have sufficient evidence to suggest its genetic. I find a religious person asking for definitive proof to be the most ironic concept in existence...
I disagree with you. I'm open to be proven wrong though. If you can cite some of this evidence I would be glad to sit down and read them. You act as if I am automatically closed, I am willing to give consideration to your point of view, there is no need to suggest that I am automatically closed minded.Thats STILL not what I was saying was irrational! Are you Michael Howard in disguise?
I'll give you another shot to clear it up for me.Again, you're not actually replying to what I wrote. As goes making radical decisions - the families in question already exist - and you can't change that.
I asked a question about the Civil Partnership Bill, if you could clear that up for me it would be a help.As opposed to you who rejects the vast weight of evidence in favour of a few, in some cases those who are known to be diagramatically opposed to the mainstream? Give me a break here.
I've offered you the opportunity to present your evidence, I will consider it. From what I have read, some scientists propose the view that it is biological but this is speculation and not absolute proof, and other scientists propose that we cannot draw these conclusions.You're still sticking to this delusion that what there is is a 'disagreement'. You are opposed to equal rights, end of.
I am just curious as to how you define disagreement. I'm becoming increasingly tired of your accusations. Can you tell me clearly what is actually your opinion?You need clarification on your own posts now? It was you that brought up it being genetic as important, than posts later you claim it isn't!
I need clarification on how you are using or how you are interpreting my posts.
I never said that it was important or unimportant. This is a strawman of my posts. I said that we don't know whether or not sexuality is genetically determined in response to claims that disagreeing with homosexual marriage is the same as disagreeing with interracial marriage. A common argument from LGBT activists, but one that I disagree with. I've explained why above.How on earth can you not see involving a formerly totally distant biological parent in a childs life after a bereavement as anything butharmful?
No I don't see it as harmful. I don't see a father as a distant relative at any time.It doesn't, at all.
Interesting, because I saw a letter in the Irish Times that claimed it did recently.I'm interested in you 'coming out' (if you pardon the pun) from behind your facade. You are opposed solely on religious grounds and this is blatantly clear.
I'd be interested if you could focus on the discussion instead of making claims about my opinion which I have never made. I don't seek to impose my personal morality on everyone in society. Christianity is something that is chosen not something that is imposed. I've told you I support separation of church and state.
This type of goading shouldn't be encouraged. I have told you there are many secular grounds on which I am opposed. Whether or not you want to believe what I say is fine, but don't add to what I say please.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64900
I disagree with you. I'm open to be proven wrong though. If you can cite some of this evidence I would be glad to sit down and read them. You act as if I am automatically closed, I am willing to give consideration to your point of view, there is no need to suggest that I am automatically closed minded.
You are automatically closed minded because you have spent enough time finding any evidence you can possibly cite that supports your point of view and have somehow managed to miss all the rest.
On the biological side of things, there is masses of evidence of physical charicteristics which are prevelant in most homosexuals that are not / are different in most heterosexuals. I direct you to the worlds least reliable encyclopedia for a relatively well sourced list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Physiological
Dean Hamer (1993/1996) and subsequent research mostly aimed at disproving him have shown significant genetic similarities between gay relations not exhibited in non-gay ones; and have also shown significant evidence of the concept of "maternal loading", that is that the higher the prevelance of homosexuality on the mothers side, the higher chance of homosexual offspring. Effectively all studies in to genetics related to male homosexuality have hit on a specific common but not constantly occuring genetic marker, Xq28. If you can use and abuse a college library you should be able to access back issues of Science and Nature which have the full articles in them, due to working in the medical profession I've been able to lay my hands on them from time to time.
All studies to try and disprove him have done nothing more than provide varying, generally lower rates of Xq28 and have done nothing to disprove the basis for the research.I'll give you another shot to clear it up for me.
I'm not clearing up your own posts for you. Read what I wrote the first time before you started throwing tangental replies in.I asked a question about the Civil Partnership Bill, if you could clear that up for me it would be a help.
The section you quoted there was in reply to a section which asked nothing about the Bill.I've offered you the opportunity to present your evidence, I will consider it. From what I have read, some scientists propose the view that it is biological but this is speculation and not absolute proof, and other scientists propose that we cannot draw these conclusions.
There is little in science which has absolute proof. Many, not some, scientists provide views, backed with plentiful evidence that it is biological, some other scientists claim we cannot draw conclusions without actually disproving the evidence. You chose to go with the latter as you want them to be correct.I am just curious as to how you define disagreement. I'm becoming increasingly tired of your accusations. Can you tell me clearly what is actually your opinion?
My opinion is that you are entirely opposed to equal rights for homosexuals and that you are determined to claim that you are but with "disagreements".No I don't see it as harmful. I don't see a father as a distant relative at any time.
A father who may have never met the child, may have no interest in the child, may resent the child? This is not going to protect the childs best interests. If the father has been present in the childs life, by all means grant them access - but under no circumstances is it a good idea to drag them back in.Interesting, because I saw a letter in the Irish Times that claimed it did recently.
You saw a letter, I've read the bill. Marked difference there.0 -
You are automatically closed minded because you have spent enough time finding any evidence you can possibly cite that supports your point of view and have somehow managed to miss all the rest.
Am I, I've asked you to offer what you have so I can look at it. I feel that it is not a conclusive issue, and that it is not "universally accepted" like you claim it is.On the biological side of things, there is masses of evidence of physical charicteristics which are prevelant in most homosexuals that are not / are different in most heterosexuals. I direct you to the worlds least reliable encyclopedia for a relatively well sourced list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Physiological
I'll be looking at this.Dean Hamer (1993/1996) and subsequent research mostly aimed at disproving him have shown significant genetic similarities between gay relations not exhibited in non-gay ones; and have also shown significant evidence of the concept of "maternal loading", that is that the higher the prevelance of homosexuality on the mothers side, the higher chance of homosexual offspring. Effectively all studies in to genetics related to male homosexuality have hit on a specific common but not constantly occuring genetic marker, Xq28. If you can use and abuse a college library you should be able to access back issues of Science and Nature which have the full articles in them, due to working in the medical profession I've been able to lay my hands on them from time to time.
I'll also be looking at this. As for "Science and Nature" I have access to these journals electronically too I think.There is little in science which has absolute proof. Many, not some, scientists provide views, backed with plentiful evidence that it is biological, some other scientists claim we cannot draw conclusions without actually disproving the evidence. You chose to go with the latter as you want them to be correct.
Yet there are consensuses on certain issues in science. There does not seem to be a consensus on this issue from what I have read.
It's nothing to do with what I want to be correct. Accusing me of confirmation bias when I don't have a clear view on the issue is quite disingenuous.My opinion is that you are entirely opposed to equal rights for homosexuals and that you are determined to claim that you are but with "disagreements".
I disagree that we cannot accommodate homosexual relationships without having gay marriage. That's the height of my opinion. I don't feel it discriminatory to have marriage as a separate union to civil unions. Marriage in Irish law is defined as the union between a man and a woman currently. I consider there to be nothing wrong with defining civil union to be a union between two of the same gender. This is the view of the Government also. I don't feel this view is discriminatory. You do. That's what most people call a disagreement.A father who may have never met the child, may have no interest in the child, may resent the child? This is not going to protect the childs best interests. If the father has been present in the childs life, by all means grant them access - but under no circumstances is it a good idea to drag them back in.
I think it is a good idea to have biological fathers involved in their child's life.You saw a letter, I've read the bill. Marked difference there.
Why is it that you assume that when I post, I am not open to accept that I am wrong? I have told you throughout this thread, if you feel that I am wrong, tell me!
I'll look up the text of the bill for myself it's no problem. I'll talk about the bill after consulting it
Again, I must stress this. I realise my opinion will be offensive to people on this thread. This is not my intention, but I have no interest in retracting my true opinion or being reluctant to speak what I truly believe. I aim to have this discussion with the utmost of respect to all involved. Understandably, I am also getting increasingly tired of accusations of "ulterior motives", so if you could reply without doing this, it would be much appreciated 0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64900
Yet there are consensuses on certain issues in science. There does not seem to be a consensus on this issue from what I have read.
Science as a whole generally doesn't come to consensus over *anything* related to the human body. It is only about 40 years since the medical profession in general decided that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness - until this point most research in to it was along the lines of "cures", suggested ones ranging from hormones to ECT... There has been 20-25 years research in to the biological/genetic basis to homosexuality, there is not going to be consensus yet.
I'll remind you that science spent about 60 years arguing over germ theory, with many, many scientists insisting it was baseless and an attempt to justify "unusual" medical treatments. This wasn't even that long ago! Recently enough to have been recorded in scientific journals (1840s-1900s)It's nothing to do with what I want to be correct. Accusing me of confirmation bias when I don't have a clear view on the issue is quite disingenuous.
Having gone to the trouble of finding scientists to link to who agreed with your point suggests confirmation bias to me.I think it is a good idea to have biological fathers involved in their child's life.
And I think you are dangerously, dangerously wrong on this. I would hope the social services of the state agree with me...
There are some direct questions posed to you by me and others you have failed to answer still.0 -
Science as a whole generally doesn't come to consensus over *anything* related to the human body. It is only about 40 years since the medical profession in general decided that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness - until this point most research in to it was along the lines of "cures", suggested ones ranging from hormones to ECT... There has been 20-25 years research in to the biological/genetic basis to homosexuality, there is not going to be consensus yet.
It would be your prerogative as the one proposing the viewpoint that homosexuality is certainly determined by biology to demonstrate to me that case, or even that most scientists put forward this as the case.
I remain open on the issue. I don't think I can take sides yet. Hence why I regard all possibilities to be out on the table concerning the origins of sexuality.
However, I don't go as far and say that scientists who propose the POV that biologically is biologically determined are wrong. Nor do I go as far and say that scientists who propose the POV that it isn't are wrong. I remain doubtful on the issue. I've yet to see what is so wrong about that.I'll remind you that science spent about 60 years arguing over germ theory, with many, many scientists insisting it was baseless and an attempt to justify "unusual" medical treatments. This wasn't even that long ago! Recently enough to have been recorded in scientific journals (1840s-1900s)
Discussion and challenge is one of the reasons why science is the discipline it is today. You do realise that one of the principles of science is to rigorously test and examine what people have put forward. What was previously regarded as science can be obsoleted if someone who challenges it can demonstrably show that it isn't the case.
We haven't even got to that stage yet. Whether homosexuality is determined biologically is not scientifically factual. At least I have nothing to suggest that it clearly is.Having gone to the trouble of finding scientists to link to who agreed with your point suggests confirmation bias to me.
Didn't you do this yourself a few minutes ago?
I'm willing to look at everything you have put forward. It would be hard to have a confirmation bias when I claim not to know whether or not biologically determined.
When I quote something that expresses that we cannot know, it is somehow worthy of defence to you. You automatically do not consider it legitimate science because it expresses doubt about what you hold to be sacred.
Look, if it's offensive, there is nothing I can do about it. People disagree with people every day. It is up to you to deal with that offense how you will.
However, this insistence that my disagreement is really "more than disagreement" isn't doing your argument much favours.
I've asked you not to strawman my position, yet you continue to do so, why is this?And I think you are dangerously, dangerously wrong on this. I would hope the social services of the state agree with me...
I would obviously prefer it if biological fathers were involved in the childrearing process far sooner than the point of death of the deceased. However, I think the biological father does have rights of custody in relation to the child irrespective of whether you would like it to be the case.There are some direct questions posed to you by me and others you have failed to answer still.
When you and several others are all posing questions towards little old me, it's pretty hard to get round to them all. I think I've been straight with you.
Edit: Bear in mind, I am under no obligation to answer every single question you pose to me. This is a dialogue, not a monologue. I isn't just a question and answer session. I should be entitled to ask you questions, and you should be entitled to ask me questions.
This utter defensiveness is a bit over the top. What is so wrong that people hold alternative views to you?0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 64900
Didn't you do this yourself a few minutes ago?
At your very specific request!When you and several others are all posing questions towards little old me, it's pretty hard to get round to them all. I think I've been straight with you.
One of them I have asked about 6 times and you have proffered a non-reply about 4 times. You've got round to it and not answered it, often.This utter defensiveness is a bit over the top. What is so wrong that people hold alternative views to you?
There is nothing wrong with holding alternate views. There is something majorly wrong with taking a serious one of them - that you do not support equal rights - and masking it as a 'disagreement'. A disagreement is something minor.0 -
Advertisement
-
It would be your prerogative as the one proposing the viewpoint that homosexuality is certainly determined by biology to demonstrate to me that case, or even that most scientists put forward this as the case.
As complete Off-topic banter, I find this viewpoint hilarious considering how strongly you believe in the existence of God.Jakkass wrote:We haven't even got to that stage yet. Whether homosexuality is determined biologically is not scientifically factual. At least I have nothing to suggest that it clearly is.
Like most things, it's almost certainly due to a combination of genetics and environment. This makes it inherently impossible to discover exactly why people are gay but can give some factors which make it more likely (eg certain genes, position in family, society in which you grow etc). Haven't looked up any recent articles but I'll try and rustle up the ones I've read in the past.Jakkass wrote:Look, if it's offensive, there is nothing I can do about it.
You could try to understand gay people instead of blanketing them with your own biased views.Jakkass wrote:What is so wrong that people hold alternative views to you?
What is so wrong that people think you are undeserving of equal rights and incapable of raising a healthy child?0
Advertisement