Gay Rights

skywalker

hot2def wrote:

not to be twee, but life is an unhealthy environment. the leading question was who gets to decide what is an unhealthy envirnoment?

Well thats certainly what it comes down to. Personally I feel a child who is adopted by a gay couple will face sufficient extra challenges in their early life stemming from that, to make it something to make it something that im not sure should happen. Im not saying that it couldnt work. But isnt that whats its all about, the interests of the child as opposed to the interests of the couple.

RobEire

This is as easy for me to answer as the question - should women be paid the same as men in the workforce? Of course yes!

BoozyBabe

imright wrote:

wow you dont say...your very bright

My very bright what??

Oh, Mr intelligent:- did you mean You're or you are

Having my intelligence insulted by you is no big insult tbh!
Go brush up on your grammar:rolleyes:

imright

oh the ironing is delicious

RobEire

imright wrote:

Gays shouldnt be let any where near children

You wouldnt let a Gay man look after animals?
You wouldnt let fat people look after your plate of burgers would you?
So we shouldnt trust gays with kids...end of story

There is this strange misconception that all gays are paedophiles. True, quite a few paedophiles are gay, but not all of them. Certainly the one that snatched my cousin wasn't (was married with kids of his own).

But then again - all your assertions above are infantile and without any basis in logic.

justsomebloke

Bambi wrote:

Well no, they shouldnt, unless theres a chronic shortage of married couples who are suitable for adopting. I'd give the nod to a mammy/daddy setup over mammy or daddy doing it by themselves tbh.

If there was a chronic shortage of married couples looking to adopt then would you allow gay couples to adopt as surely 2 loving parents would be better then one single parent

imright

TO RobEire


Facts and logic are meanless you can make anything sound true if you back it up with facts and logic....

Sifo

yeah they should have the same rights.. Although i dont believe people in same sex a marriages should raise a family. I think it could have a negative effect on the child. A child should never be without a mother. In some cases this cannot be helped orphans etc. but one father is enough...

Nalz

Im a bit iffy on this subject, but on a side note - about 2 weeks ago The Sun displayed in my view a sickoning picture on both the front page and pages 4 and 5 of 2 famous boyband members shifting. The fact that it turned my stomach alone isnt what Im upset about, its the fact that my little nephew was with me in the shop at the time of viewing. Now its easy enough to avoid him seeing a page 3 chick, but this pic was for all to see. I didnt know how to react to the questions I got from him when he saw it. He's at that awkward age 9/10, a little innocent but smart and wise enough not to be fooled...

I know people would love if all opened their eyes and except people for who and what they are, but when it goes against religions (which isnt that important) and nature (which is alot more important) its hard to except certain things. In an ideal world...............but its situations like these where its hard to explain to kids about gays, and the who what where and whys that go with them

RobEire

imright wrote:

TO RobEire


Facts and logic are meanless you can make anything sound true if you back it up with facts and logic....

You may have a point, in fact I am sure I can find some statistics that would back you up...

Beruthiel

imright wrote:

Gays shouldnt be let any where near children

You wouldnt let a Gay man look after animals?
You wouldnt let fat people look after your plate of burgers would you?
So we shouldnt trust gays with kids...end of story

troll banned... :rolleyes:

hot2def

imright wrote:

Gays shouldnt be let any where near children

You wouldnt let a Gay man look after animals?
You wouldnt let fat people look after your plate of burgers would you?
So we shouldnt trust gays with kids...end of story

and you believe this so strongly that you had to make up a second (at least) anonymous name to even say it on the internet. good work.

Dudess

The stupidity of some of the posts here is phenomenal. BEING BROUGHT UP BY GAY PEOPLE WILL NOT "TURN" A CHILD GAY!!! Also, it will not warp a person or cause them to be "brainwashed". I can't believe I'm actually saying this to (I would have thought) young, enlightened people in 2006! This "theory" about homosexuality being due to nurture rather than nature - on what do people actually base it? It's like this (again, I can't believe I'm typing it but clearly there are some people who need to be told): there are people who fancy members of their own gender. Simple. And, shock horror, it's the way they have always been. I agree, a kid being brought up by a gay couple is bound to come in for an awful lot of stick unfortunately - most likely by other kids whose parents have taught them to hate. But these kinds of people are the problem for the kid, not the gay parents.
Another notion is that gay people are deviant and perverted and that homosexuality is comparable to, or the same as, paedophilia. Some people on this message board seem to believe this. God help us all.
The other gem is that gay people choose this "lifestyle". To those who believe this: would you choose to sleep with members of your own gender when you'd actually prefer to sleep with the opposite sex? Would you choose to have to live a lie? Would you choose to be estranged from your family? Would you choose to be abused verbally and physically on a regular basis? Would you choose to suffer discrimination and a lack of equal rights? I'm straight but I know gay people who have experienced some, or all, of the above. And as for the religious angle: Yeah, it's really christian to gay-bash. Exactly the kind of message Christ was trying to spread about tolerance, love, forgiveness and compassion.

Grow up, you pack of morons!

BoozyBabe

Well said Dudess!

RobEire

Dudess wrote:

The stupidity of some of the posts here is phenomenal. BEING BROUGHT UP BY GAY PEOPLE WILL NOT "TURN" A CHILD GAY!!! Also, it will not warp a person or cause them to be "brainwashed". I can't believe I'm actually saying this to (I would have thought) young, enlightened people in 2006! This "theory" about homosexuality being due to nurture rather than nature - on what do people actually base it? It's like this (again, I can't believe I'm typing it but clearly there are some people who need to be told): there are people who fancy members of their own gender. Simple. And, shock horror, it's the way they have always been. I agree, a kid being brought up by a gay couple is bound to come in for an awful lot of stick unfortunately - most likely by other kids whose parents have taught them to hate. But these kinds of people are the problem for the kid, not the gay parents.
Another notion is that gay people are deviant and perverted and that homosexuality is comparable to, or the same as, paedophilia. Some people on this message board seem to believe this. God help us all.
The other gem is that gay people choose this "lifestyle". To those who believe this: would you choose to sleep with members of your own gender when you'd actually prefer to sleep with the opposite sex? Would you choose to have to live a lie? Would you choose to be estranged from your family? Would you choose to be abused verbally and physically on a regular basis? Would you choose to suffer discrimination and a lack of equal rights? I'm straight but I know gay people who have experienced some, or all, of the above. And as for the religious angle: Yeah, it's really christian to gay-bash. Exactly the kind of message Christ was trying to spread about tolerance, love, forgiveness and compassion.

Grow up, you pack of morons!

You know, I walked out of my church after 10 years of membership over this issue - the inability of the church elders to a) accept the fact that gays do not choose to be gay and b) that they have the same rights as straight people.

The rather weak argument they came back with was that gay people deprive children of a father/mother. I suggested that single parents might do the same - after some sputtering on their part I was allowed to leave...

I have noticed, in more places than just here - the association people make between gays and perversion, particularly paedophilia. It is very very worrying indeed.

Sifo

Dudess wrote:

The stupidity of some of the posts here is phenomenal. BEING BROUGHT UP BY GAY PEOPLE WILL NOT "TURN" A CHILD GAY!!! Also, it will not warp a person or cause them to be "brainwashed". I can't believe I'm actually saying this to (I would have thought) young, enlightened people in 2006! This "theory" about homosexuality being due to nurture rather than nature - on what do people actually base it? It's like this (again, I can't believe I'm typing it but clearly there are some people who need to be told): there are people who fancy members of their own gender. Simple. And, shock horror, it's the way they have always been. I agree, a kid being brought up by a gay couple is bound to come in for an awful lot of stick unfortunately - most likely by other kids whose parents have taught them to hate. But these kinds of people are the problem for the kid, not the gay parents.
Another notion is that gay people are deviant and perverted and that homosexuality is comparable to, or the same as, paedophilia. Some people on this message board seem to believe this. God help us all.
The other gem is that gay people choose this "lifestyle". To those who believe this: would you choose to sleep with members of your own gender when you'd actually prefer to sleep with the opposite sex? Would you choose to have to live a lie? Would you choose to be estranged from your family? Would you choose to be abused verbally and physically on a regular basis? Would you choose to suffer discrimination and a lack of equal rights? I'm straight but I know gay people who have experienced some, or all, of the above. And as for the religious angle: Yeah, it's really christian to gay-bash. Exactly the kind of message Christ was trying to spread about tolerance, love, forgiveness and compassion.

Grow up, you pack of morons!

Although I agree with you, you should really try and put your point across in a calmer and less crazy ho way...

Dyr

jsb wrote:

If there was a chronic shortage of married couples looking to adopt then would you allow gay couples to adopt as surely 2 loving parents would be better then one single parent

There isnt a chronic shortage though, unless you include the poor foreign orphan babbies which is opening another ethical kettle of worms
Its all a fine balancing act, im sure you could give orphans to a circus of clowns or something and they would be loved and looked after but is it in the nippers best interests?

I think its the childs interests that come first as opposed to the "rights" of the adopted parents. I'm sure there's gay men who'd make good parents but you have to weigh that against the extreme oddness (oddity?? oddosity??) of that set up in wider social sense.

Dudess

Oh Sifo, surely you're not accusing me of being aggressively opinionated?! No, I'm actually a really sweet person.

hot2def

Bambi wrote:

Its all a fine balancing act, im sure you could give orphans to a circus of clowns or something and they would be loved and looked after but is it in the nippers best interests?

so tell me, do you have an exhaustive list of social groups who should not be allowed to adopt, or do you stop at the twin evils of the carnies and the gays?

koneko

People fear what they don't know. I don't see anything to suggest that having gay parents would make someone "warped". You can't give in to potential bullies (who are childish insecure people) by denying two loving people the right to adopt and raise a baby.

2 gay people that will raise the kid badly? They shouldn't be allowed to adopt. But neither should 2 straight people who will raise a kid badly. I don't see why people are getting so concerned. 2 gay people who want to adopt a child are obviously giving it a lot of thought before they go through with it, adoption is a long and hard process. Yet 2 straight scumbag a-holes can pop out a sprog anytime they want (and more often, when they don't want, and then couldn't be arsed raise their kid).

justsomebloke

Bambi wrote:

There isnt a chronic shortage though

well you said that if there was a chronic shortage you think it would be fine for single parents to adopt, so hypotetically speaking (as you where the one to bring it up) would it not be better for a child to be brought up in family with 2 gay parents as oppose to one single parent

rubadub

So should single people be allowed to adopt, or 2 people of either sex who are not having sex with each other? Adoption agencies should investigate people themselves.

I don't think there should be any financial benefits for married people. I do believe in child support but not money just because people are riding each other. You will get drinking buddies getting married for the laugh just to screw the taxman while never screwing each other :v:

Trilla

Trilla wrote:

I know people would love if all opened their eyes and except people for who and what they are, but when it goes against religions (which isnt that important) and nature (which is alot more important) its hard to except certain things. In an ideal world...............but its situations like these where its hard to explain to kids about gays, and the who what where and whys that go with them

Tbh, a lot of people find it just as awkward to explain to kids about non gay sex.

As for being against nature, many animals exhibit homosexual tendencies.

Dudess

Trilla wrote:

Im a bit iffy on this subject, but on a side note - about 2 weeks ago The Sun displayed in my view a sickoning picture on both the front page and pages 4 and 5 of 2 famous boyband members shifting. The fact that it turned my stomach alone isnt what Im upset about, its the fact that my little nephew was with me in the shop at the time of viewing. Now its easy enough to avoid him seeing a page 3 chick, but this pic was for all to see. I didnt know how to react to the questions I got from him when he saw it. He's at that awkward age 9/10, a little innocent but smart and wise enough not to be fooled...

I know people would love if all opened their eyes and except people for who and what they are, but when it goes against religions (which isnt that important) and nature (which is alot more important) its hard to except certain things. In an ideal world...............but its situations like these where its hard to explain to kids about gays, and the who what where and whys that go with them

So two people who fancy each other are snogging and it turned your stomach. Oh wait, two guys snogging each other turned your stomach. So a pic of a guy and a girl snogging would be fine in front of your nephew. Why couldn't you just tell your nephew that some people are attracted to members of their own sex? I don't see the problem. It isn't a problem, but you see it as one because you think homosexuality goes against nature. How can a person's sexual orientation be unnatural?
At least you don't want your nephew seeing page three chicks (some of those girls are barely 17. I think Samantha Fox was 16). That, along with the likes of the Britney/tAtU schoolgirl videos and the Christina Aguilera boxing ring video for Dirrty, are what we should really be concerned about when it comes to young kids.

The_Minister

Hobbes wrote:

Indeed. I always wondered those so anti-gay get hung up on the sex part. They seem to think gay couples are continual shag-fests where the child will be enforced to watch because they are in the way of the telly.

Thats cause women limit sex. Men never tire. Ergo, in a gay relationship there would be no limits to times of sex.

netwhizkid wrote:

Similar to Paris Hilton and her pet Chihuahua.

This is the image i got.

The_Minister

Dudess wrote:

The stupidity of some of the posts here is phenomenal. BEING BROUGHT UP BY GAY PEOPLE WILL NOT "TURN" A CHILD GAY!!! Also, it will not warp a person or cause them to be "brainwashed". I can't believe I'm actually saying this. This "theory" about homosexuality being due to nurture rather than nature - on what do people actually base it?

What do you base your - its natural - theorey? Certain cultures have far more gays than others eg Ancient Greece, Australia. Why would numbers differ between countries if not due to culture?

Dudess wrote:

. I agree, a kid being brought up by a gay couple is bound to come in for an awful lot of stick unfortunately - most likely by other kids whose parents have taught them to hate. But these kinds of people are the problem for the kid, not the gay parents.

You cannot put a child through trauma to prove a political point. The fact that so many people support this proves they are unfit to be parents.

Dudess wrote:

Another notion is that gay people are deviant and perverted and that homosexuality is comparable to, or the same as, paedophilia. Some people on this message board seem to believe this..

The largest number of paedophile attacks are men on boys.

Dudess wrote:

God help us all..

God blew up two cities because they accepted Gays. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Dudess wrote:

And as for the religious angle: Yeah, it's really christian to gay-bash. Exactly the kind of message Christ was trying to spread about tolerance, love, forgiveness and compassion..

See above

Dudess wrote:

Grow up, you pack of morons!

Grow up and stop peddling gay propoganda

Dyr

hot2def wrote:

so tell me, do you have an exhaustive list of social groups who should not be allowed to adopt, or do you stop at the twin evils of the carnies and the gays?

No but Im sure i could compile one, but its more that the meat and two veg, mammy daddy option should win out over your more exotic social groupings when it comes to giving little timmy his chance in life. Kiddies arent social ploughs to push someone's agenda for equality

hot2def

Firespinner wrote:

The largest number of paedophile attacks are men on boys.

and most women are raped by men. the problem isn't that they are men, but that they are rapists.

hot2def

Bambi wrote:

Kiddies arent social ploughs to push someone's agenda for equality

nor are they trophies to be awarded to those closest to what you regard as the social norm.

The_Minister

hot2def wrote:

and most women are raped by men. the problem isn't that they are men, but that they are rapists.

No the problem is that a larger percentage rape children, and they want to adopt children. (Remember they will likely be meeting many more gays than a normal child)

Flashling

Alot of people seem to be assuming that kids will get bullied for having gay parents, but they are alot more tolerent than people are giving them credit for. In schools in Dublin today there is a very high percentage of people from ethnic backgrounds, and they aren't bullied. In fact, even in secondary school, where people get meaner, alot of people who have come out aren't bullied themselves, never mind about their parents. I know that there are gay bashers out there, but they are mostly grown up. Just a point for the anti adoption side to consider....

Firewalkwithme

I couldn't vote yes for this because of the way the OP made the poll cover both marriage and adoption.

Marriage - Yes, by all means.

Adoption - No way - go find a sperm or womb donor (whichever applies).

hot2def

Firespinner wrote:

No the problem is that a larger percentage rape children, and they want to adopt children. (Remember they will likely be meeting many more gays than a normal child)

nope, you missed it. my point was that the two issues aren't related. And there's no scientific evidence that shows otherwise.

The_Minister

Flashling wrote:

Alot of people seem to be assuming that kids will get bullied for having gay parents, but they are alot more tolerent than people are giving them credit for. In schools in Dublin today there is a very high percentage of people from ethnic backgrounds, and they aren't bullied. In fact, even in secondary school, where people get meaner, alot of people who have come out aren't bullied themselves, never mind about their parents. I know that there are gay bashers out there, but they are mostly grown up. Just a point for the anti adoption side to consider....

In my brothers primary school a Russian boy wrote "Leave me alone" on a piece of paper and stapled it to his forehead. Guess why?

hot2def

Despatch wrote:

I couldn't vote yes for this because of the way the OP made the poll cover both marriage and adoption.

Marriage - Yes, by all means.

Adoption - No way - go find a sperm or womb donor (whichever applies).

actually I agree with you on this one. I'm confused as to why gay people are looking for approval on this one, there are other ways....

rainbow kirby

Gay, straight... we're all human. And we should all have the right to marry. And as long as they can be good parents, the right to adopt children too.

hot2def

Firespinner wrote:

In my brothers primary school a Russian boy wrote "Leave me alone" on a piece of paper and stapled it to his forehead. Guess why?

soooooo, following your logic, we should keep Russians out of the country because it isn't fair on their kids.

Tiesto

i think yes to marriage but no to adoption..
Its hard enough raising a child in this backward society of Ireland as it is, cant imagine how hard it would be on the child growing up having 2 male parents or 2 female parents for that matter! The child would have such a difficult youth.

Dudess

Firespinner wrote:

What do you base your - its natural - theorey? Certain cultures have far more gays than others eg Ancient Greece, Australia. Why would numbers differ between countries if not due to culture?

Because certain cultures are more tolerant. A survey last year revealed that there are no - that's zero - lesbians in Northern Ireland. Funny that, N.I. being such a delightfully liberal society and all...
I base my "it's natural" theory on simply this: why would a person choose to be gay, given all the **** they have to put up with? And why would your environment determine your sexual orientation? As has been reiterated countless times before, the children of heterosexual couples can be gay.

Firespinner wrote:

You cannot put a child through trauma to prove a political point. The fact that so many people support this proves they are unfit to be parents.

Believe it or not, not all gay people are cynical and self-serving enough to use children to prove a political point. Some of them just want to give deserving kids a good home. There is no reason why they couldn't be loving parents, but society won't accept this idea - not because these are cruel, amoral people, but because they aren't heterosexual.

Firespinner wrote:

The largest number of paedophile attacks are men on boys.

That means they fancy boys, not men. The focus here, just to remind you, is on consensual relationships between two adults.

Firespinner wrote:

God blew up to cities because they accepted Gays. I wouldn't hold your breath.

WHA??? I presume you mean "two" cities. Which two cities were blown up? New York and London? Because from what I heard, they most certainly were not blown up by God or anyone representing him...

Firespinner wrote:

Grow up and stop peddling gay propoganda

Propaganda? I'm not promoting or recruiting for a political party! Standing up for something much abused, ridiculed and misunderstood is quite different to using propaganda.

WhiteWashMan

to the gay board, bi-boy!

damien

This is not a LGBT specific issue. It should be in humanities. What do the LGB mods think?

patzer117

i'm liberal, i'm all for equal rights, equal pay, civil-partnerships, but i'm not for adoption of kids. I think the ideal situation for a kid is to have a mother and a father bringing it up and I feel that if given the choice only a woman and man, married, should be able to adopt. Yeah some situations like single mums are far worse, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. I think a child needs, ideally, a male and female role model in the form of their parents and the adoption agencies shouldn't settle for anything less.

i know this is going to offend people but sorry.

the reason i'm not for marriage is because the whole point of marraige is to raise kids, no other reason is given. so civil partnerships with equal footing tax breaks, inheritance allowances etc. are great, but not adoption. no siree...

Boston

el tel wrote:

I think all couples should have equal rights regardless however yesterday I heard the arguement that because gay couples chose a relationship that naturally precludes procreation they in effect are forfeiting their ability to have children and as such should not be allowed to adopt children. Anyone heard of this or any views?

Gay people can't have children with the people they love. This is the criteria behind many adoptions. should a filtie man or woman who chooses a partner who they can't have a child with, be equally blocked from adoption? I think the answer to that is obvious.

[QUOTE=LundiMardi]yes, it would be weird imo seeing a gay couple (men) raising a male child, don't ask me why, just the picture in my head looks weird!! heh...

But yeah sure why not![/QUOTE]

Why men as opposed to women? I understand where you're coming from, it's largely down to your own personal experience and how you view the world. My mother was definitely "the Parent" while my father stood a step to the side. So you might picture things with two people playing a role similiar to my fathers, and no one playing the "mammy role". But this doesn't really reflect how things actually are.

[QUOTE=declanoneill]Children should never be allowed to be placed in the care of a person or people that would result in their warping as they got older[/QUOTE]

Are the children or single parents any more/less warped? Or the children of creationists or cummunists... or what ever, design warped. If warped means the child won't see anything wrong with homosexuality, then wheres the problem.

[QUOTE=sinecurea]I think they should have every right a normal couple should have except for the fact that they should not be allowed to adopt a baby. This could only result in an unbalanced child.[/QUOTE]

There are numerous examples of where you're wrong.

[QUOTE=skywalker]True kids have to deal with all kinds of things, but should they be put into an environement which might well give them other things to contend with.[/QUOTE]

Well, quiet frankly, the sins or the father are often placed upon the son. Travellers should be stralised by you promess. Also whats with the WOW comment.

[QUOTE=Bambi]I dunno, if i was a nipper and i found out that i was being adopted by two gay daddies rather than a mammy/daddy arrangement i'd feel pretty ripped off[/QUOTE]
So you have no daddy or mamy, and someone offers you two, and you think you would be pissed off. You'd say"oh no, i don't want a loving home, i'll stay in care"

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Thats cause women limit sex. Men never tire. Ergo, in a gay relationship there would be no limits to times of sex.

Wow. Someone is a virgin. Mate people's sex drives are different at different times of their lives, the suggestion that men are beasts and that women "limit sex" is like something out of a sex education manual from the 30s.

No the problem is that a larger percentage rape children

A common piece of slander. Paedophalia is not the same as homosexuality and most intelligent thought on the matter is it is a different sexual orientation seperate from either homosexuality than hetrosexuality.

Truthfully I'd rather have a senstive well adjusted gay man confident and secure in his sexual idenity, teach and look over my children than some oppressed confused man in a black dress talking about sinful wicked ways of the flesh.

What do you base your - its natural - theorey? Certain cultures have far more gays than others eg Ancient Greece, Australia. Why would numbers differ between countries if not due to culture?

Certain cultures have a more tolerant and open attitude towards sexuality doesn't mean that theres more of them.

The fact that so many people support this proves they are unfit to be parents.

Lots of people supported apartheid and race discrimination, are you saying that their support makes these things right?

patzer119 wrote:

i'm liberal, i'm all for equal rights, equal pay, civil-partnerships, but i'm not for adoption of kids. I think the ideal situation for a kid is to have a mother and a father bringing it up and I feel that if given the choice only a woman and man, married, should be able to adopt. Yeah some situations like single mums are far worse, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt either. I think a child needs, ideally, a male and female role model in the form of their parents and the adoption agencies shouldn't settle for anything less.

Okay and again why Does a child need it? Many single parents raise their children to be healthy strong individuals, yet these children are missing either a mother or father? Your moot your own point.

Are you saying if the options are a gay couple with no criminal record successful, intelligent, well off, want to adopt, and a hetro married couple he's got a couple of DUIs and a drunk and disorderly on his sheet, and perhaps maybe some domestic violence, you'd put the child in with them over the gay couple?

Dudess

Firespinner wrote:

Thats cause women limit sex. Men never tire. Ergo, in a gay relationship there would be no limits to times of sex.

What sort of horse**** is that statement? I'm a woman and I'm not aware of myself "limiting" sex any more than a man would. So if women "limit" sex, you're not opposed to a lesbian couple adopting a child, is it? Just two gay men. You could at least keep your homophobia consistent.
In terms of the adoption issue, though, as long as attitudes prevail as they are, I don't see how it would work to a child's advantage. Say what you will: kids aren't as bad as we think they are, we shouldn't pander to the bigots. I agree, but at the end of the day, if the kid gets bullied because of attitudes, then maybe adoption by gay couples should be for another time when these attitudes change. I think they will. I know things are bad, but not as bad as they used to be. Our generation is a lot more tolerant than that of our parents.

rsynnott

el tel wrote:

I think all couples should have equal rights regardless however yesterday I heard the arguement that because gay couples chose a relationship that naturally precludes procreation they in effect are forfeiting their ability to have children and as such should not be allowed to adopt children. Anyone heard of this or any views?

Er, you're aware that we allow sterile people to adopt, right?

netwhizkid wrote:

Gay Couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt Children. It goes against Nature, Our Moral Catholic Ethos and against family values which we hold so dearly in Ireland. I am also against Civil-Partnerships, however Homosexuals should have have a facility where they can avail of services available to Married people, eg. any tax breaks based on marriage or "next-of-kin" rights should one member of the Homosexual relationship die entitling the other half of the relationship rights to their partners assets unless otherwise directed by the deceased partner.

First, please stop with the capitalisation. Second, what you have described is a civil partnership. What did you think a civil partnership was? And it goes against nature? How, precisely? Homosexual behaviour is rather common among most higher mammals. I have no interest in the morals of the Catholic church; we are, supposedly, a secular society.

Homosexuals should be glad they have made so much gains in recent years, up until recently Homosexuality was illegal afaik. As a society Ireland is not ready for full integration Homosexuals into Mainstream society just yet. Maybe in 50yrs.

Homosexuals should be glad? That they've been given basic civil rights? While denied some others? Er, okay. I am reminded of the rhetoric used in the US deep south to deny black people the vote after they were freed from slavery.

The Idea of Homosexuals adopting Children is terrible, Imagine the kids going to school, The psychological damage to Children would be awful. Children have grown up fine in families where one parent has died or left but Children need balance and most definitely not two mothers or fathers.

Indeed. Now, it has come to my attention that fat children are often bullied. The obvious solution is a nationwide culling of fat children, and sterilisation of fat people. No fat person should ever be allowed to adopt.

Do you see how silly that is?

sinecurea wrote:

But what sort of example is it going to set when the child starts to develop a sexual identity?

Ah, you're absolutely right. You know, when I was growing up, I heard Kenneth Williams on the radio, and I thought to myself "hmm, I'd better become a homosexual". Honestly, did you think that through at all?

netwhizkid wrote:

chances is that they too themselves may grow up Gay as a result of living in such a Gay Environment.

Er, evidence? (Incidentally, I am enjoying trying to picture what you might think a Gay Environment would be. In truth, it'd be rather similar to a Straight Environment, I think).

imright wrote:

Gays shouldnt be let any where near children

You wouldnt let a Gay man look after animals?
You wouldnt let fat people look after your plate of burgers would you?
So we shouldnt trust gays with kids...end of story

Oh, dear. I don't feel that people that stupid should be allowed to have children.

Trilla wrote:

I know people would love if all opened their eyes and except people for who and what they are, but when it goes against religions (which isnt that important) and nature (which is alot more important) its hard to except certain things. In an ideal world...............but its situations like these where its hard to explain to kids about gays, and the who what where and whys that go with them

Oh, another one. What's this "against nature" thing? Really? And as to explaining homosexuality to children, how, precisely, do you explain heterosexuality to children? Same thing!

Firespinner wrote:

something

Oh, I couldn't be bothered.

Firespinner wrote:

In my brothers primary school a Russian boy wrote "Leave me alone" on a piece of paper and stapled it to his forehead. Guess why?

So, would you allow foreign people to adopt? The aforementioned Fat Menace? People with prominent teeth? Where do we draw the line, and admit that kids will bully over any old thing?

patzer117 wrote:

the reason i'm not for marriage is because the whole point of marraige is to raise kids, no other reason is given. so civil partnerships with equal footing tax breaks, inheritance allowances etc. are great, but not adoption. no siree...

We do allow sterile people to marry, you know.

Freelancer

This kids will be bullied nonsense is just bull.

There was one poor bastard who started secondary school, in me back in the early 90s with the unfortunate name "Jason Donovan" (back in the old Scott n Charleen days) We ripped the piss out of him something rotten. One kid got laughed at cause his dad's name was Pascal. I talked too fast. Fat kids cause they were fat, nerds because they are nerds, etc etc........

In fact a Australian friend had a class mate who's mother was eaten by a shark. While cleaning barnacles off their boat, in front of her children; who were greeted on their first day back at school, by class mates running after them chanting the theme from Jaws.

Kids are a violent malevolent vicious tribe and will attack their classmates over the slightest thing, so suggesting that these kids need to be protected because their parents are gay and they may get teased is just bullshít.

Ag marbh

Only found this thread now and I am quite digusted that 1/5 of voters believed that homosexuals shoudn't have the same rights as hetrosexuals. It's hard to believe that it's the 21st century and we(society) still have some hangups regarding the subject. The latest display of worldwide hangups regarding the subject came around the film Brokeback mountain and the homophobes were out in full force. It was a brilliant movie so no need to be so insecure, homophobes.

rsynnott

Ag marbh wrote:

Only found this thread now and I am quite digusted that 1/5 of voters believed that homosexuals shoudn't have the same rights as hetrosexuals. It's hard to believe that it's the 21st century and we(society) still have some hangups regarding the subject. The latest display of worldwide hangups regarding the subject came around the film Brokeback mountain and the homophobes were out in full force. It was a brilliant movie so no need to be so insecure, homophobes.

I'd say it's more than a fifth in general society; it's just that people who use this sort of thing, and particularly Humanities and similar boards, are likely to be a bit smarter than average.

Ag marbh

rsynnott wrote:

I'd say it's more than a fifth in general society; it's just that people who use this sort of thing, and particularly Humanities and similar boards, are likely to be a bit smarter than average.

Edit - Rephrasing.

Yeah I would imagine more than 1/5. I spent last weekend down in Mullingar and my friends from the town told me that they're only beginning to accept the gay people within the community so I wonder what it's like in other country towns further down the country?