Gay Rights

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

This has relevence to you as well. You maintain that the number of homophobic assaults is low, and the only evidence that you can use is that you haven't heard gay complainers talking about it. Surely you will want something more concrete to base your views on?

Granted yes, however the fact that no one is highlighting the issue, means it is essentially, a non issue, a straw man, an empty argument.

If this report is done well and is truely representative then it will settle the arguement of a large part of this thread, and I thought you would be at least interested in that.

Firespinner you've been clutching at straws, talking about your friends in "the gays" how "men limit sex" or absurdities about homosexuality. This is the last straw in your argument, and you've frantically struggled to find evidence to support it. Even if you could find evidence that this is such an issue, it does not prove children of homosexuals who adopt would be more likely to be abused.

Incidently has your friend in "the guards" who claims the george gets special protection ever got back to you about the protection for other gay establishments?

If the numbers turn out to be, in my estimation, low enough as to constitute no threat, then I will support civil partnership.

Firespinner wrote:

As I've said on this thread it is not a completely seperate issue, if the kids would be at risk from such violence.

First you claim you're in favour of civil partnerships, then you're in favour of civil partnerships provided homophobic violence isn't an issue, now we're back to the kids.

Make up your mind would you.....

Annasopra

As I've said on this thread it is not a completely seperate issue, if the kids would be at risk from such violence.

Just because you said the issues are not separate does not mean that you are right

Ok maybe you're confused and don't really know what you're talking about - Civil Partnership will not automatically confer the ability to adopt - In fact that is one of the major arguments for/against it

Whoever introduced the issue of adoption totallly confused Firespinner all together

Also - how do targeted attacks against gay people put children at risk - and what has that got to do with granting same sex couples partnership rights

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

Just because you said the issues are not separate does not mean that you are right

Ok maybe you're confused and don't really know what you're talking about - Civil Partnership will not automatically confer the ability to adopt - In fact that is one of the major arguments for/against it

Whoever introduced the issue of adoption totallly confused Firespinner all together

Also - how do targeted attacks against gay people put children at risk - and what has that got to do with granting same sex couples partnership rights

I said in a different part of the thread that I was for already civil partnerships without adoption.
I feel that the kids would get the **** kicked out of them in school and in life if they had gay parents.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I said in a different part of the thread that I was for already civil partnerships without adoption.
I feel that the kids would get the **** kicked out of them in school and in life if they had gay parents.

I'm glad you added feel there because you "feel" this without a shred of proof, and while ignoring reports about how the children raised by gay people suffer no adverse psychological problems, or are he victims of bullying.

Good for you to hold onto your "feelings" in the vaccum of evidence to support it and while ignoring the evidence that disputes it.

Annasopra

Firespinner wrote:

I said in a different part of the thread that I was for already civil partnerships without adoption.
I feel that the kids would get the **** kicked out of them in school and in life if they had gay parents.

so what if kids had tall parents or fat parents ?

Freelancer

Johnnymcg wrote:

so what if kids had tall parents or fat parents ?

Or racial minorities, or inter racial for that matter.

Nope hasn't sunk in with him.

Firespinner thinks that this is gay people trying to make a political point, as if any gay person who wants to start a family is doing it because
"yeah this'll piss off the moral majority"

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

so what if kids had tall parents or fat parents ?

I'm 6'4" - tall isn't that much of a problem.
I think (as I have said) that more people hate gays than hate fat people.

rsynnott

Firespinner wrote:

I'm 6'4" - tall isn't that much of a problem.
I think (as I have said) that more people hate gays than hate fat people.

How about children of interracial couples? Or interfaith? That used to be a big, shocking thing, you know. Most of the children seem to have survived.

Annasopra

Firespinner wrote:

I'm 6'4" - tall isn't that much of a problem.
I think (as I have said) that more people hate gays than hate fat people.

and? how is this an argument against adoption?

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

and? how is this an argument against adoption?

If the kids were going to get the **** kicked out of them to an extent that transcended normal bullying then that would constitute child endangerment and would be wrong. The child has the right to a good home, not the parents a right to a child.

Annasopra

Ok - the child has a right to a good home - you agree with that - so how does something that happens outside the home affect that right? - Could such bigotry and bullying not be challenged?

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

If the kids were going to get the **** kicked out of them to an extent that transcended normal bullying then that would constitute child endangerment

Theres three points here;

1) You've offered no evidence that children adopted by gay couples have faced, or could faced such violence.

2) You've ignored studies that demostrate that children adopted by gay couples don't suffer adverse psychological or emotional problems. Which would suggest that children adopted by gay couples aren't being bullied to any serious degree, bullying would cause those psychological or emotional problems.

3) You've offered no evidence that homophobic violence occurs in Ireland to any significant degree which would support your claims.

Firespinner you can keep repeating your mantra, this is the last point you've got left and you aren't making it well.

The child has the right to a good home, not the parents a right to a child.

There are thousands, millions of children in this world who are desperate for a good home, are you going to deprive them of you, because they will have two daddies?

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

Ok - the child has a right to a good home - you agree with that - so how does something that happens outside the home affect that right? - Could such bigotry and bullying not be challenged?

I've said already, and freelancer made reference to it, you cannot put children in danger to prove a political point. If putting children in a certain home exposed them to danger, even from outside the home then it should not be allowed. Society must have stopped hating before such a measure was brought in. (this is why I am interested in the results of the study that you mentioned)

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I've said already, and freelancer made reference to it, you cannot put children in danger to prove a political point.

And you keep missing it. Gay couples don't want to adopt to prove a political point. They're doing it to start and have a family. These families aren't trying to march in the NY St. Patricks day parade, they're trying to have children. It is tedious of you to keep making this eronous claim.

If putting children in a certain home exposed them to danger, even from outside the home then it should not be allowed.

And again you have not proved such a danger exists.

Society must have stopped hating before such a measure was brought in.

:rolleyes:

(this is why I am interested in the results of the study that you mentioned)

Must. Clutch. At. Last. Straw.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

And you keep missing it. Gay couples don't want to adopt to prove a political point. They're doing it to start and have a family. These families aren't trying to march in the NY St. Patricks day parade, they're trying to have children. It is tedious of you to keep making this eronous claim.

I was referring to people who talk of challanging bigots by letting gay people adopt. I never said that all gay people who adopt are doing so for politics, just that one cannot use children to combat violence.

Freelancer wrote:

And again you have not proved such a danger exists.

Because no data exists in the republic for this. That is why I am interested in the results of this study (presuming its done well).

Freelancer wrote:

Must. Clutch. At. Last. Straw.

You. Have. Posted. That. Before. Was. Not. Funny. First. Time.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I was referring to people who talk of challanging bigots by letting gay people adopt.

Who's saying that??? Whos talking about doing this for those reasons? You've created a classic straw man. No one is saying that at all, so talking about it like its the opinion of someone you're arguing against isn't fair, or intellectually honest.

I never said that all gay people who adopt are doing so for politics, just that one cannot use children to combat violence.

Violence that you haven't proved is happening.

Because no data exists in the republic for this. That is why I am interested in the results of this study (presuming its done well).

Incorrect a few pages back, you claimed there were figures, you just cannot find them.

Okay so you don't know, so bleating about how its a reason to oppose adoption is inane.

There's no figures for mime or clown related attacks in Ireland, so like in this case I must assume that violence against clowns and mimes isn't endemic. Similar to this situation, homophobic violence, the absence of people making an issue out of it, means that is just that. A non issue.

You're not got a leg to stand on.

You. Have. Posted. That. Before. Was. Not. Funny. First. Time.

Its funny from where I'm standing, watching your every argument against this get shredded, but you're desperately hoping some report will come and save you.

And Firespinner I hate to break it to you, the level of homophobic attacks will in no way prove to you that children adopted by homosexuals will face violence.

Annasopra

I never said that all gay people who adopt are doing so for politics, just that one cannot use children to combat violence.

What?!? - nobody is using children to combat violence!

I completely fail to understand what you are talking about there

By the way should black people be allowed to have children while racism still exists

Zombrex

Firespinner wrote:

I was referring to people who talk of challanging bigots by letting gay people adopt.

Your missing the point.

The point isn't that we should allow suitable gay couples to adopt as a challange to bigots.

The point is that we shouldn't stop suitable gay couples from adopting just because of the attitutes of some bigots who have a problem with it.

metrovelvet

Freelancer wrote:

nd Firespinner I hate to break it to you, the level of homophobic attacks will in no way prove to you that children adopted by homosexuals will face violence.

Well, when my mothers moved to Ireland as a young child with her family, with an Irish father and latina mother, she had stones thrown at her reguarly, which is indesputably violence, not because her family was interracial by Irish standards but because her accent was English. So yes, these kids will get bullied and hurt.

You have yet to provide one example how this is a positive solution for children FL. Why should they be allowed to adopt? All you do is attack other people opinions and dont substantiate your own.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Well, when my mothers moved to Ireland as a young child with her family, with an Irish father and latina mother, she had stones thrown at her reguarly, which is indesputably violence, not because her family was interracial by Irish standards but because her accent was English. So yes, these kids will get bullied and hurt.

Hmm, I hadn't realised that we had a standard of 'interracial'-ness different from everybody else's. Now, that was quite a long time ago, no? Things have changed.

metrovelvet wrote:

You have yet to provide one example how this is a positive solution for children FL. Why should they be allowed to adopt? All you do is attack other people opinions and dont substantiate your own.

If there are no more qualified adoptive parents available then it would obviously be a positive solution. While there are lots of people wanting to adopt, not all of them are suitable by a longshot.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

Well, when my mothers moved to Ireland as a young child with her family, with an Irish father and latina mother, she had stones thrown at her reguarly, which is indesputably violence, not because her family was interracial by Irish standards but because her accent was English. So yes, these kids will get bullied and hurt.

So whats your solution, we shouldn't allow inter racial couples, and gay couples to have children?

Twenty years ago we had issues about protestant and catholic couples, we don't have such a hang up now, as a society we've matured greatly in a short space of time. Announcing that something happened twenty years ago as evidence of violence today cannot be used as proof.

You have yet to provide one example how this is a positive solution for children FL. Why should they be allowed to adopt? All you do is attack other people opinions and dont substantiate your own.

Why shouldn't they be allowed adopt? What harm will it do children? What is wrong about two men raising a child?

I've provided substantive evidence that it does hurt or harm children to be adopted by gay couples, why shouldn't it go ahead?

And how is it a positive solution for children? Gosh I dunno, because they won't get raised in a orphanage or foster home?

Oh and hey metrovelvet, nice to see you've entered the debate and not just sat on the sidelines offering lurid gossip about the fox newsroom.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Hmm, I hadn't realised that we had a standard of 'interracial'-ness different from everybody else's. Now, that was quite a long time ago, no? Things have changed.

Must have been quite a recent change given that when I was a child I witnessed quite a bit of that kind of behaviour - and I wasn't a child that long ago.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

So yes, these kids will get bullied and hurt.

Kids will get bullied and hurt. Thats life. It isn't a reason to not allow an adoption. You cannot predict why or how a child will be bullied in the next ten years.

Would u support not allowing adoption because the parents are black, asian, eastern european, American, have funny names, raise their children to be push overs, get in a fight with another parent, decide to not buy their kids the right pair of shoes etc etc (off the top of my head reasons why kids in my school were bullied)

metrovelvet

No - Ireland has not evolved. It has superficial topical tips of that hat towards progress but the reality is that it is still a provincial nation in many ways. Sorry rsynnot but it does have a differnet race conciousness. Its the only place where I get a spanish inquisition as to where I got brown eyes and if Im there to learn English and whats the weather like in Spain, France, oh and sometimes Thailand. You have a far far far differentstandard of interracialness. I dont think in any other country would I be considered anything other than white, but in Ireland is a question.

I was quite shocked to hear people my own age whose parents had brought them back from England to hear about physical abuse they got in school.

Bullying is not the reason I do not support gay adoption. Im just pointing out it will happen. My interest is in the welfare of children not in the right of gay men to riase a family. Since when is having a family a right? Considering that the gay community adopted the derogatory term "breeders" for the straight community I think its a bit rich to now be demanding their children.

Bullying because of ethinic/racial/national background can do one of two things: lead you to utter self hatred or build character as it takes so much courage to be different.

Why would I not want to allow interracial coupling? Thats insane. Freelancer, please.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

No - Ireland has not evolved. It has superficial topical tips of that hat towards progress but the reality is that it is still a provincial nation in many ways. Sorry rsynnot but it does have a differnet race conciousness. Its the only place where I get a spanish inquisition as to where I got brown eyes and if Im there to learn English and whats the weather like in Spain, France, oh and sometimes Thailand. You have a far far far differentstandard of interracialness. I dont think in any other country would I be considered anything other than white, but in Ireland is a question.

Are you going to prove any of this?

We've matured greatly in the way we accept homosexual on tv.
We've matured greatly in the way that inter racial and inter faith couples are treated and accepted.

You can go off on another one of your inane tagents but that doesn't mean you're right.

I was quite shocked to hear people my own age whose parents had brought them back from England to hear about physical abuse they got in school.

That doesn't really happen any more.

Bullying is not the reason I do not support gay adoption. Im just pointing out it will happen. My interest is in the welfare of children not in the right of gay men to riase a family.

Okay so you're interested in the children, bullying isn't why you object, how do you feel the welfare of children would be adversely affected by gay adoption (and seeing as you don't see bullying as the issue what is)

Since when is having a family a right? Considering that the gay community adopted the derogatory term "breeders" for the straight community I think its a bit rich to now be demanding their children.

Theres two points here

1) A element of the gay community refers to us as breeders. Considering the plethora of derogatory terms given to them they don't deserve a bit of quid pro quo?

2) The entire gay community doesn't refer to straight people as breeders. Should we deny the rest of the community children because of one playful nickname some of them give straight people?

Bullying because of ethinic/racial/national background can do one of two things: lead you to utter self hatred or build character as it takes so much courage to be different.

We've cited two studies earlier in this thread that show children adopted by gay couples don't suffer adverise psychological conditions. Bully for you for ignoring it.

Why would I not want to allow interracial coupling? Thats insane. Freelancer, please.

:rolleyes:

Children of interracial couples may face bullying you originally said you thought children of gay couples would face bullying as a reason to oppose gays adopting I merely extrapolated this from your opinion

RandolphEsq

gay couples should be allowed have 'civil unions' but shouldnt be allowed marry in a church, as for adopting theres no reason why they shouldnt be allowed as long as they seem like nice parents

rsynnott

BrightEyes wrote:

gay couples should be allowed have 'civil unions' but shouldnt be allowed marry in a church, as for adopting theres no reason why they shouldnt be allowed as long as they seem like nice parents

First, marriage in Ireland (and in most other countries) doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a church. Now, why wouldn't you let gay people have a religious marriage if the church (Unitarians, Reform Judaism etc.) wants to marry them?

RandolphEsq

I don't know about other churches but the catholic church dosent allow it and I wouldnt want to see a gay couple marching up the aisle in a catholic church,if its allowed in other churches fair enough but the catholic church shouldnt allow it to happen

Freelancer

BrightEyes wrote:

I don't know about other churches but the catholic church dosent allow it and I wouldnt want to see a gay couple marching up the aisle in a catholic church,if its allowed in other churches fair enough but the catholic church shouldnt allow it to happen

No one is trying to force the church to accept gay rights to marry isn't what we are talking about. I doubt any gay couples want to force the church the church to let them walk down the isle, but rather to be equal to straight couples in the eyes of the law.

Now a question for you, if by some miracle ratzinger dies, and a liberal pope is appointed, who allows gays to marry in churchs, would you still be aganist it?

Dudess

Why on earth do you feel it's it ok for other churches, but not the Catholic Church?

Because everyone loves quoting parts of the OT that don't apply anymore (if anyone here quotes leviticus, hang your head in shame), and sticking with the mistranslations of some letters sent to the Romans.

Dudess

Or is it the old NIMBY syndrome? Catholicism is the predominant religion in this country so if the Catholic Church was to allow gay marriage, this "threat" would be far closer to home and we might have to - gasp! - witness gay couples heading into the church to tie the knot on a regular basis. But once it's in a synagogue that's ok. There aren't many synagogues here...:rolleyes:

RandolphEsq

its not ok for gay marriage in the catholic church because thats what their religion says. they shouldnt be forced to accept gay marriages into the church since its not what the religion stands for

Zombrex

BrightEyes wrote:

its not ok for gay marriage in the catholic church because thats what their religion says. they shouldnt be forced to accept gay marriages into the church since its not what the religion stands for

Legally marriage has nothing to do with religion or a church, so it is a bit of a non-issue no matter what religion you are.

Chinafoot

BrightEyes wrote:

its not ok for gay marriage in the catholic church because thats what their religion says. they shouldnt be forced to accept gay marriages into the church since its not what the religion stands for

They are against priests having sex but that doesn't seem to have been a problem for some of them over the past few years :rolleyes: (sorry I couldn't resist)

Anyway, on-topic.

I see absolutley no reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed marry or adopt children. On the issue of adoption, people here are making claims that the children will be in an unsafe environment or they will be bullied at school etc. Do you honestly think that the situation will be helped by bowing to discrimination like that?

Now before firespinner starts on about using children to make a political point....I'm not suggesting that. All I'm saying is that things will never change if the minorities of society continually bow down to the bigotries often expressed by the majority.

Freelancer

peachypants wrote:

Now before firespinner starts on about using children to make a political point....I'm not suggesting that.

I wouldn't worry about that firespinner is doing his typical impression of Brave Sir Robin on this thread.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

I wouldn't worry about that firespinner is doing his typical impression of Brave Sir Robin on this thread.

I am waiting for that study to come out. When it comes out we will know who is right. There is little point going round in circles like this until we know the actual statistics. I have said this before.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I am waiting for that study to come out. When it comes out we will know who is right. There is little point going round in circles like this until we know the actual statistics. I have said this before.

Oh bless you still think you have a leg to stand on?

You started here claiming that gay establishments need gardai protection and get in (incidently has your mate in the "guards" ever gotten back to you on that?)

Okay now well thats not true you started here claiming gay men do "it" all the time and children would be more exposed to paedophilia, you've dropped that one.

You've ignored reports that children adopted by gay couples turn out just as healthy as children raised in a "normal" environment, and instead fixated on your claim that gay people get beaten up "all the time" in Ireland. Despite the fact that it's such a non issue the gay community in Ireland don't see it as a significant problem. You're now desperately hoping some report about homophobic attacks will "prove" your point.

If the report is accurate it'll prove homophobic assaults occur in the city center late at night. Not an environment children ar found in. It will not "prove" children raised by gay couples will face assault.

Annasopra

I am waiting for that study to come out. When it comes out we will know who is right. There is little point going round in circles like this until we know the actual statistics. I have said this before.

And we have said before several times that report or no report the issue of attacks against gay people and bullying of children with gay parents are COMPLETELY SEPARATE issues - yet you still this report will prove your point - I can tell you categorically it won't - these are totally unrelated issues

Annasopra

Firespinner wrote:

I am waiting for that study to come out. When it comes out we will know who is right. There is little point going round in circles like this until we know the actual statistics. I have said this before.

It's out about 2 weeks

The_Minister

Johnnymcg wrote:

It's out about 2 weeks

I'd actually forgotten about this thread:o
Freelancer has been banned and he was my main opponent so I kinda left it....
Where can I find the study?

Sand

Where can I find the study?

Well you could pm random Boards users until one gives you a link, or you could go to www.google.com and have a go yourself...

The_Minister

Sand wrote:

Well you could pm random Boards users until one gives you a link, or you could go to www.google.com and have a go yourself...

I checked google. There were plenty of reports of its launch but none of the survey itself

johnnygroup

Apologies for the delay in getting it online here you go

http://www.gayhealthnetwork.ie/folder/web/pdf/hatecrimereport.pdf

antSionnach

"Dad, and Dad: Im straight":D

Yeah why not, who knows they might make less of a mess of it that straight couples. I think in 200 years we (or those who come after us depending on how my time travelling actually works out for me) will look back on this time as a dark age of opinion on human relationships

Ickle Magoo

I have no problem with gay marriage or adoption....on a side issue, why is it automatically assumed that the gays in question are male? What about lesbians, would they fall under the same assumptions re child rearing, paedophilia, warping young minds, etc?

The Corinthian

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I have no problem with gay marriage or adoption....on a side issue, why is it automatically assumed that the gays in question are male? What about lesbians, would they fall under the same assumptions re child rearing, paedophilia, warping young minds, etc?

I don’t think anyone makes that assumption for marriage, however it is often made in the question of adoption. As for why, this is hardly rocket science:

1. Lesbians can and typically do take up the option of IVF treatment or equivalent rather than needing to adopt.
2. The vast majority of reported paedophiles are men.

Tha Gopher

This thread is truly and utterly.....I dont know. In 2006 Boards has truly gone to the dogs in terms of common sense, the only saving grace being that out there in the real world I can probably think of at most two people who sympathise with the views expressed here. I honestly feel that these days a great deal of posters here will ignore their own thoughts on a matter to tow the PC line, "the right thing to do". I truly cannot believe that anybody who attended a school in the republic of Ireland in their lives is so up their own arse (no pun intended) that a boy who lives with two men as dads will on average suffer as much stick as the only nerdy/fat/black/English/whatever child in the class. Think back to when you were younger- if they had the vote, most boys between 8 and 18 would vote for a party whos main campaign promise is to burn all gays out of the country by 2010. You really honestly think that these kids are going to get an easy time? There are alot more liberal places than Ireland. Just because you find a study that said children adopted by gays in Holland or California experienced little additional hassle throughout their lives doesnt mean the same is going to happen when you do it in Finglas. It makes about as much sense as saying a study revealed that girls who wear bikinis on European beaches experience no negative social outcast status, so girls in Iran should start doing the same. There is a slim chance that, because a 5 year old boy starting off in school is joining a group that have absoloutely no idea what gay people are, and by the time young lads gain a vague knowledge of what its all about (around 8 or so), it is possible that the kid will already be so accepted as part of the class it will be irrelevant to the other students (mind you, a very slim one). But once he starts secondary, lumped in with a bunch of 13 yearold lads who hes never met before and theyve heard he lives with two gay lads, he hasnt a hope in hell (and if you think otherwise, you were homeschooled). The whole arguement has a sort of NIMBYism to it which I would call NIML - Not In My Life. Ah yeah, its grand for gays to adopt is the public line. What you dont need to mention is that you wouldnt really have wanted to be 13 and when asked "what do your mam and dad work at" reply that you have two dads and never met your mother. Bringing the first girl home to meet the "parents". Getting married, trying to explain to your future in laws your family situation. You really, truly wish you had lived this life?

And as for the arguement that there is no such thing as gay, straight and bisexual paedophiles, someone should really look up dictionary definations of the three terms.

Of course, I might as well be talking to the wall. As said, a great many of you here know full well this wouldnt work out in the school you went to, but its not the right thing to do in admitting this.

Shellie13

Freelancer wrote:

Should we not allow gay people to adopt for no good reason other than some people won't like it? Not because its wrong but because there's prejudice against it? What message is that?

Exactly-by following this logic we shouldn't let black people into the country because they might encounter rasism!

A loving family with strong values is of paramount to a child but does it REALLY matter what form this family takes?!

The Corinthian

Shellie13 wrote:

Exactly-by following this logic we shouldn't let black people into the country because they might encounter rasism!

It reminds me of a debate in UCD a long time ago, about allowing a Traveller halting site on the grounds of Belfield. The opposition, all good, clean, middle-class and sanctimoniously Politically Correct, fell over each other with the argument that it should not on the basis that they disserved better.

It was one of the few times in my life that my cynicism failed to protect me from that sense of nausea you get when confronted with that level of sheer hypocrisy.