Civil Marriage Protest! 9th August!

Untense wrote: »

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.

I never said that "children need to be kept away from the homosexual relationship". I'm quite alright with the idea of my children knowing that homosexuals exist. I'm not quite alright with children being raised without a mother and a father.

Untense wrote: »

If you had the chance to vote against single heterosexual parents adopting, would you?

Yes.

Untense wrote: »

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.

I've explained why I feel the race example doesn't cut it. I don't oppose adoption. I feel that children should be raised with both a mother and a father even if they are not the biological parents. I also believe that children should have access to their biological parents if adopted.

Untense wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the difference between the two. And define a homosexual lifestyle.

I have already explained what I meant by this term. I've also explained the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual relationship in my post.

Untense wrote: »

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.

Again, I've dealt with the difference between skin tone and sexuality.

Sexual acts involve actions. It is quite conceivable one can disagree with actions. Skin colour does not involve actions. We also have evidence to say that it is genetically determined.

Untense wrote: »

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.

As for jumping to conclusions to things I don't understand. I don't feel I can jump to conclusions on this. I would need indications to suggest that something is true before I subscribe to it as a viewpoint.

I have yet to see what the big deal is that I don't hold the same view as other people do. I concede that I don't know, and I feel that this is the honest and right thing to do if I don't know.

People are getting hot and bothered about this. I can understand that if you believe what you do it's offensive. However in a pluralist society you have to understand that people will disagree with you.

Untense wrote: »

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?

I don't refuse to accept it. I've answered. I believe the Government should financially promote adoption in whatever way possible so that children can have the right to both a mother and a father.

Some people seem to think that this is an objection that I have in the case of homosexual unions. However it simply isn't. I personally think that children should have a mother and a father. I think it would be a good idea if single mothers could find a husband obviously if she loves him, so that the child can have a father figure in their lives. Likewise I believe that the State should promote giving children both a mother and a father. I hope that will address your point.

Untense wrote: »

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.

I believe that the State should govern independent of viewpoint on religion. My personal ethics and morality inform how I act. My faith is also a powerful guide in my life, I am not going to deny that. However, I believe early Christians did not get involved in power, Paul advised Christians to adhere to the State as long as it did not deny personal religious freedoms. Being respectful to the State as an external power was what was right to do.

I have no interest in having a Christian view forced on non-Christians. Not in the slightest. I believe Christianity is a free choice, and I believe that it changes lives if chosen voluntarily. I of course encourage evangelism, but any church function should be separate from the State. I also think the State should not exert inappropriate control over people of faith or their churches.

Christians should be free to offer opinions on politics, but Christianity should not decide political decisions merely because it is Christianity. Political decisions should be made because they are reasonable.

I've already told you. I respect homosexuals as people first. I don't feel people should be categorised by their sexuality. People have much more to offer the world.

I hope that addresses your concern.

HI all, I was there, great parade, powerful speakers .... I took lots of pictures of people marching. I was the 6'6'' guy getting in everyones way with a camera. .......

Well I developed the film last night and scanned the negs todays so if you want to see the raw versions here , before I tweak them , let me know if you want a copy etc

http://flickr.com/gp/13111789@N00/2v7pEf

regards

Anthony Cronin

MatthewVII wrote: »

As complete Off-topic banter, I find this viewpoint hilarious considering how strongly you believe in the existence of God.

Given the amount of discussion we have had on God, I think you will know that I believe in God because I believe I have good reason to believe that God exists. You know as well as I do that that is for another thread.

MatthewVII wrote: »

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.

Right, as long as you are willing to understand that that is speculation and not fact I'm fine with that. However to profess this as fact and to tell everyone who is either unsure about that hypothesis, or who holds a different hypothesis that they are homophobic for doing so is a bit extreme. It serves to stifle debate and is ultimately unhelpful.

Jakkass wrote: »

If marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Then the statement, everyone can be married is applicable. Everyone can seek to be married.

If civil union is a union between a man and a woman. Then the statement everyone can have a civil union is applicable. Everyone can seek for this union.

This is the reason why I disagree with the notion that it is discriminatory.

If a new law is passed stating that the only religion it's legal to practice in Ireland is Scientology. Then the statement, everyone can practice religon is applicable. Mightn't be the religion they want to practice but they still have the right so they should be happy with it and I'm sure you'd see no problem with that.

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that "children need to be kept away from the homosexual relationship". I'm quite alright with the idea of my children knowing that homosexuals exist. I'm not quite alright with children being raised without a mother and a father.

100% agreed

elekid wrote: »

If a new law is passed stating that the only religion it's legal to practice in Ireland is Scientology. Then the statement, everyone can practice religon is applicable. Mightn't be the religion they want to practice but they still have the right so they should be happy with it and I'm sure you'd see no problem with that.

I think I'd do a jolly good job of worshipping in secret

Goodshape wrote: »

And you wouldn't consider that an unfair discrimination against you? You'd be happy to live in that society?

If I could still worship anyway, albeit in an illegal fashion that would seem to be to be the solution.

I don't think there is a legitimate comparison with this. The issue that people are having is with how marriage is defined, not in the fact that they cannot get married.

Goodshape wrote: »

And you wouldn't consider that an unfair discrimination against you? You'd be happy to live in that society?

Of course it would be unfair discrimination, but it wouldn't be anything that would stop me regarding God as I do.

I don't think disagreement concerning definition constitutes discrimination in relation to marriage especially when an alternative is offered.

Goodshape wrote: »

No, it is similar. I can legally get married - just not to someone I love. You would be legally free to worship - just not to a God you believe in.

This would be ignoring the notion of civil unions completely. As for not being allowed to worship in God, I believe that God exists everywhere. It's pretty well impossible to stop someone praying in their mind, or hiding a Bible somewhere in their home or elsewhere.

I mean this happens all over the world today, particularly in the Middle East.

Goodshape wrote: »

It is very similar to saying "there is no discrimination" in current marriage laws.

It isn't really. One concerns how marriage is defined, another concerns a blanket ban on religion X. Banning religion X would be more equivalent to banning homosexual acts rather than defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Reflector wrote: »

Jackass,
I find that your arguements bear no resemblance to reality, yes there is an ideal for children to grow up with their biological parents in a clean house with a fantastic education and money so that they can partake in loads of hobbies and perhaps throw some horses into the mix. Unfortunately life doesn't work that way and many many children are deprived, abused and maltreated.
Surely the right to be considered for the adoption of children is not unreasonable.

You can feel whatever way you like about my arguments.

I believe that children should have both a mother and a father in their development. I've even left the door open for a compromise on the issue of adoption on this thread:

Jakkass wrote:

If there was a possibility whereby the child could have a third parent if you will to serve as the mother or father in that childs life on a regular basis I might be more open to the possibility of LGBT family structures.

Reflector wrote: »

Also if a gay relationship is deemed an unfit environment for children than it is regarded as a deviant relationship and each party is therefore a second class citizen. You cant say gay is ok but not for children that is extremely offensive.

I disagree. Not every person can adopt on certain grounds, that doesn't mean that they are second class citizens for not having the correct parenting credentials. In fact it would be absurd. Adoption is not a right, it is something that one can apply for and based on their credentials to parent a child they might be given permission to do so.

I don't think that adoption agencies should be encouraging family units without a mother and a father to adopt. That's my personal view on the matter.

My views may be offensive, but that is no proper reason for me to retract them. It isn't my sole intention to cause offence by posting on this thread. People will have different views, and some will be offensive to the other, that's a fact of life.

I feel its best if i answer Iwasfrozen's original question.

True protests don't force the government to call for a referendum on gay marriage, however they do alert the public that people, no matter how many there are, that we (the LGBT comu) are upset with the current situation on the matter.
This allows for others who may not have been aware of the situation to form opinions, after obtaining the proper information on the matter which most of the time are given through media coverage, and that way can better the chance of the LGBT community getting what they want.

This is why protests are held.

I would also just like to say that i may only be 20 but i know that in the future i want a child. The thought of being told due to a sentence or two, that i can't just because i sleep with a man makes me feel sick.
I respect your opinion on the matter,
But i will have a child no matter what even if it means i must have one through a surrogate mother, meaning of course, the mother will never be there for him/her. surely it would be better to be able to adopt and give an already existing child a better life than being cooped up in some old home.

As promised:

Untense wrote: »

I absolutely agree with this when it comes to a child waiting in an adoption agency who has not met a family.
My issue with the current civil union bill is that it does not provide next of kin rights for already existing families. Right now, there are families that are outside of your family ideal.

Okay. I'm aware of this.

Untense wrote: »

I am not referring to children who are 'awaiting adoption', but kids who are already part of and have bonded with, an existing family unit.
Do you regard these already existing same-sex family units as a family in any way ? Would you want support for them?

I would regard them as a family unit, but one that is not ideal for a child to be raised in. I feel that the nuclear family should be incentivised through taxes as the Conservative Party in the UK has advocated.

Untense wrote: »

Earlier in the thread there was mention of the next of kin rights, and you seemed unfamiliar with the point. Do you know that the Civil Union bill does not provide gay couples with next of kin rights?
There is no legal support for any extreme eventualities in the bill, should as a hypothetical example, the biological mother be involved in an accident and in a coma, the partner, having no next of kin rights, does not have any say in their partner's wellbeing. Meanwhile they also have no legal right to remain as guardian over the child.
What do you make of that scenario? Without mentioning the biological father, please.

I wasn't aware of this until MYOB brought it up. A letter I had read in the Irish Times led me to believe otherwise.

You say no reference to the biological father, but I feel that it is important to take into account. Personally I would prefer if both the biological father and the other partner were given joint custody. If the biological father is deceased I would support a male member of the mothers family to take joint custody.

Untense wrote: »

Absolutely. It's vital to give a child waiting in an agency the best possible chance of a good life with a loving family. I think anyone would be mad to dispute that. But thats an adoption agency, who I imagine would and should ensure that the child is going to the fittest family, regardless of same-sex adoption being legal or not.
In the real world there are also kids who are already part of existing families, and these families want to ensure the law will support them for all eventualities. It's quite possible for a mixed-gender couple to do this. Currently, same sex couples are unable to get the support they need for their children.

This doesn't stop me from hoping the Government puts measures in place so that the vast majority of children will be able to live in family units with both a mother and a father.

Untense wrote: »

Adoption from an agency is most certainly not a right. But to blankedly refuse all same-sex couples as possible candidates doesn't add up , to me.

I think it should be restricted to couples with both a mother and a father figure.

Untense wrote: »

Your emphasis on the importance of gender roles and their effect on a child are extremely tenuous, at best.

No it isn't.

This is from "The Role of the Father in Child Development"

From page 70:

Father communication was correlated with childrens' communication skills and in turn was linked to childhood behaviour problems. (Fagan & Inglesias 2000)

Paternal sensitivity was positively related to socialisation whereas restrictiveness was negatively related to childhood communication, socialisation (interpersonal relationships, play and leisure and coping skills) and daily living skills. (Kelley et al 1998)

Paternal warmth was associated with pro-social behaviours while control and discipline from fathers and father figures led to better school behaviours among 3rd and 4th grade children (Coley, 1998)

Close relationships and support from fathers were related to self-esteem and lower depressive symptoms in adolescents (Furstenberg & Harris 1993, Zimmerman et al 1995) whereas the lack of a close relationship with fathers did result in greater depressive symptoms in African-American girls. (Coley & Chase-Lansdale 2002).

A general trend is that African-American children who live in father present homes do better in school and have more supportive home environments than do those from father absent homes.

page 309:

White boys were affected by father absence more than were black boys and white boys from homes where a father was in residence. Only 9% of the white boys from father-present homes were rated by their mothers as "note liked by their peers", whereas over 25% of the white boys from father-absent homes were unpopular with their age mates. Similarly there was some evidence that white girls from father absent homes were at a behavioural disadvantage in comparison with white girls in homes with fathers.

Tenuous? I don't think so. I have had more difficulty finding material on the maternal impact on the child, but I have a few journals yet to read on the subject lined up.

Untense wrote: »

Gender roles are exactly that, they are roles. Understanding of gender is entirely subjective, it is not objective as you think. There are societies that recognise more than two genders.
I don't see how having male/female parents has any bearing on discipline. Can you elaborate on that point?
A child learns language regardless of the gender of their parents, and a child learns language from far more sources than their parents. What is it about having male/female parents that you feel affects the development in a child in such an area as language? And how exactly does having a same-sex couple seemingly negatively affect this?

The point is that families with both a mother and a father are more beneficial to the child. I am not convinced that families with two of the same gender are just as capable of raising a child than families with both a mother and a father are.

I have already stated that there is ground for compromise which has been received with very little response on this thread:

Jakkass wrote:

If there was a possibility whereby the child could have a third parent if you will to serve as the mother or father in that childs life on a regular basis I might be more open to the possibility of LGBT family structures.

Untense wrote: »

The gender roles you are referring to are just social habits that can be learned and unlearned in a heartbeat.

This would be dismissing the evidence that families with a mother and a father are positive on the child. I understand that you don't like that there are studies out there that do put forward the view that having a mother and a father is beneficial to the child. However, I feel we have to deal with the reality here.

Untense wrote: »

Thanks for being open to discussion.

No problem