Gay marriage

CDfm

Dizraeligears wrote: »

Gay marriage-why not?Sure havent they just as much right to be as miserable as he rest of us!
Besides its not the gay marriages we have to worry about-its the gay divorces...

Very succinctly put.

Star Bingo

huh?! oh yeah m all for it.. marry em the fook off if it stops em pesterin my batty

wonton

Jakkass wrote: »

You've just brought up a thread that was posted here over 2 years ago now.

so, thats still quite a few years younger than the bible.

Annasopra

Well we can get civil partnered from April onwards now

aDeener

i am disgusted that i cannot get married to my brother, where are my rights??!!

dlofnep

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Well we can get civil partnered from April onwards now

What's the difference? I never actually found out.

efb

No kids allowed essentially and we can't use the word 'marriage'

Dr. Baltar

efb wrote: »

No kids allowed essentially and we can't use the word 'marriage'

That's the thing though, Civil Partnership won't allow me to adopt kids if I potentially get into a relationship with a guy.
The only argument that has ever come up against Civil Marriage is a religious one and my answer to that is simple. Jesus himself "give unto caser what is his and to god with is his" (or something along those lines) which essentially means separation of church and state.

Why should YOUR religious beliefs influence MY civil rights? How does changing the definition of marriage (which is so sacred with these 48 hour separations, triple divorces ect.) going to affect your life in any REAL way?

If it were changed I could have some peace of mind knowing that I could actually raise a family and have a normal, happy life.

Chuchoter

I think it affects the way domestic violence is dealt with legally too. Its a lot more drawn out and complicated than if you're married.

efb

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

That's the thing though, Civil Partnership won't allow me to adopt kids if I potentially get into a relationship with a guy.
The only argument that has ever come up against Civil Marriage is a religious one and my answer to that is simple. Jesus himself "give unto caser what is his and to god with is his" (or something along those lines) which essentially means separation of church and state.

Why should YOUR religious beliefs influence MY civil rights? How does changing the definition of marriage (which is so sacred with these 48 hour separations, triple divorces ect.) going to affect your life in any REAL way?

If it were changed I could have some peace of mind knowing that I could actually raise a family and have a normal, happy life.

My religious beliefs???

I'm pro gay Marraige

CDfm

I think most right minded people are pro -gay marriage and not in a "las Vegas wedding and a Mexican Divorce" but in an ordinary people and ordinary lives way.

On the adoption and fostering of kids -the jury is out I am afraid.

The religous argument is a bit naff -but social workers etc will be wary as men and kids is not something they do well. Like how man heterosexual guys/dads get full custody. Go figure. The reasons they have are not straight forward.

I know a few gay blokes who would make excellent foster carers. I dont think some people actually realise how much money that foster carers actually make -and like it or not there are quite a few professional foster carers out there.

Edit @Dr Balthar - so maybe the reasons for this are more complex and need to be addressed towards the womens movement as the part of the Corporate State that represent women -as it is their patch.

Coeurdepirate

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Well we can get civil partnered from April onwards now

*gets down on one knee*
"Johnny, will you civil partner me?"


It doesn't have the same effect, does it.

CDfm

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

It doesn't have the same effect, does it.

You just wait until the divorce, then you will know all about equality when you cant get your cat back. Then you will know .:pac:

Mike 1972

Jakkass wrote: »

You've just brought up a thread that was posted here over 2 years ago now.

Dunno why people here have such a hang up about resurrecting old threads.

It sure as hell beats repeatedly starting threads on the same topics on an almost weekly basis for the the same tired old arguments/trolling to get rehashed again.

CDfm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Dunno why people here have such a hang up about resurrecting old threads.

It sure as hell beats repeatedly starting threads on the same topics on an almost weekly basis for the the same tired old arguments/trolling to get rehashed again.

+1 it is an important issue and deserves to run.

TiGeR KiNgS

I dont agree with it only because of the chance of children being rared in a family with either no mother or father. Otherwise I couldn't care less.

CDfm

TiGeR KiNgS wrote: »

I dont agree with it only because of the chance of children being rared in a family with either no mother or father. Otherwise I couldn't care less.

I dont think you can disagree with gay marriage on the hypothetical basis that someone may try to adopt a child.

That is like removing alcohol from shops on the basis that alcholics might buy it.

The adoption and fostering of children is highly regulated and is a seperate issue. Bisexuals and lesbians have been bringing up kids for years.

It isnt even in the law.

Killer Pigeon

OK, guys I've got a solution, may seem somewhat humourous.

Why don't we just leave the civil union between a man and a woman as it has traditionally been know as 'marriage'. Then we just alter the spelling of 'marriage' a little bit to 'marrage'. That way the homophobes will be happy because it isn't exactly the word 'marriage' and gay people will be happy because it somewhat resembles the word 'marriage'. Yeah, problem solved. Your rights will be infringed just by one letter.

Personally I find the whole fiasco as a bit silly. Etymological there are plenty of words in the English language that have changed meaning over time and nobody really gave a damn. Like the word 'gay' used to commonly mean 'happy' and 'carefree', where now it is commonly associated with 'homosexual'. Some people are just scared of the fact that homosexuals might gain equal rights in society, even though such egalitarianism won't in anyway hinder their own rights. It's a kind of pathetic argument really, either way.

sdanseo

As per the opinion I've voiced here before, absolutely no. Civil partnership yes, but only with a proviso that they can't adopt kids - purely because society will be ridiculously hard on the children, whether it's justified or not makes no difference, no kid should be put through that. Kids need maternal influence, also. (No comparisons to single parent households please, not the same thing and I won't entertain that argument).

CDfm

The legislation that was brought in has had more financial implications for co-habitating heterosexual couples then for gay couples.

The legislation wasn't even debated but buried.

You have gay civil union but there was a huge cost for heterosexual men, so i fact, gay rights groups representatives were very partisan in securing what they wanted.

efb

It was debated, I watched the whole thing

CDfm

efb wrote: »

It was debated, I watched the whole thing

You may have seen what you wanted to see.

The legislation affecting heterosexual couples was sneakily included and that was hugely unfair creating relationships similar to marriage at law where the people involved co-habit and never asked the other to marry them.

That was not debated or publicised and that is what I am talking about.

If you want clear straightforward laws -you campaign for clear straightforward laws.

Now I am a supporter of gay civil rights and marriage rights because I believe in equality and, I would feel that the movements should have been more open about the type of legislation they were putting thru. Getting those rights by trampling over the rights of others is not a good precedent.

Thats how it seems to me.

People like me would be slow to support a gay rights campaign in the future because of the outcome of this one.

And I am a supporter yet I am being pushed in the other direction.Thats not because I am anti gay ,but because the gay movement is anti-me.

Liam Byrne

Can't vote because of crap biased phrasing in the 2 options

rainbow kirby

CDfm wrote: »

The legislation affecting heterosexual couples was sneakily included and that was hugely unfair creating relationships similar to marriage at law where the people involved co-habit and never asked the other to marry them.

Simply legalizing full gay marriage would have completely negated the need for that piece of legislation...

CDfm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Simply legalizing full gay marriage would have completely negated the need for that piece of legislation...

Full gay marriage is what I support - however it is not where the Gay Movement went with it and they coalesed with other unelected groups to achieve their aim.

Some of these groups that are very anti-men and anti-men as fathers.

It is gay men who have the problem becoming parents - not gay women -who have reproductive biological powers.

So asking someone like me to support something again on the basis that it wont affect heterosexual mens rights as fathers is not something I or a lot of other guys would probably be open too.

The difference is that I will post my reasons for it.

So if gay men have issues they should look at themselves as part of men in society rather than a seperate homogenous group which is how they acted.

If you like , gay ireland has aligned itself with ""anti-heterosexual men" misandrist groups and you can only pull that trick once.

Coeurdepirate

sdonn wrote: »

As per the opinion I've voiced here before, absolutely no. Civil partnership yes, but only with a proviso that they can't adopt kids - purely because society will be ridiculously hard on the children, whether it's justified or not makes no difference, no kid should be put through that. Kids need maternal influence, also. (No comparisons to single parent households please, not the same thing and I won't entertain that argument).

That's the most annoying argument ever. You're like one of those "hate the sin, not the sinner!" Christians who try to justify themselves. There's a boy in my school whose parents are lesbians, nobody cares. Children get bullied for everything under the sun, and it's just not as big a deal as it may have been in your generation.
Also, I'd much prefer to be bullied at school for having gay/lesbian parents and come home to a loving family than to be bullied at school for living in an orphanage, then to come home to a phucking orphanage. It's also in the best interest of every child to be brought up in a home where they're taught the correct morals, not in one where their parent's bigoted views are rubbed on them.

grenache

Each to their own, live and let live. Gays should have every right a heterosexual person has. Infringing upon people's rights on the basis of their sexuality is horrifically wrong and totally unjust.

sdanseo

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

Children get bullied for everything under the sun, and it's just not as big a deal as it may have been in your generation.
.

First off, don't go calling me old, I'm only 22 :rolleyes:

Bullying is still a very real problem in many schools - I got a lot of it as a small kid and it was over the sillyest of things, nevermind giving the bullies a reason.

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'd much prefer to be bullied at school for having gay/lesbian parents and come home to a loving family than to be bullied at school for living in an orphanage, then to come home to a phucking orphanage. It's also in the best interest of every child to be brought up in a home where they're taught the correct morals, not in one where their parent's bigoted views are rubbed on them.

Sorry, but I don't see that the view is bigoted. in a perfect world, I'd have no problem with it and morally, although I have reservations, I agree that it's certainly better than living in an insitution. However, the phrase don't stoke the fire comes to mind - an analogy would be if you don't provoke a fight you don't get one. I f you don't provide society with a reason to shun kids in a gay relationship, then they won't be so shunned. Society isn't ready for it. I do believe it would have a negative effect on the kids as well. They ideally need input from parents of both genders. Playing with that is to me a little out there, and should be best avoided.

I can't pretend I could possibly understand a desire to marry a man - It's an alien concept - but that doesn't negate all my reasons for being against its legality.

What can I say, I disagree. For reasons, some of which, maybe I simply can't manipulate into words.

ixoy

CDfm wrote: »

Full gay marriage is what I support - however it is not where the Gay Movement went with it and they coalesed with other unelected groups to achieve their aim.
...

If you like , gay ireland has aligned itself with ""anti-heterosexual men" misandrist groups and you can only pull that trick once.

What are you on about? The ratified bill was Civil Partnership AND Cohabitation. Gay people were campaigning only for the first element: civil partnerships. This does not affect you.
Your issue is with the cohabitation element which no gay campaigners sought and is being lumped in due to the fact it amends similar acts as civil partnerships. There is no alignment here other than the convenience for a government department.

CDfm

ixoy wrote: »

. There is no alignment here other than the convenience for a government department.

The way it looks to me and the way legislation gets enacted and campigned for is that you have various interest groups involved in the issue and their views are included within the legislation enacted.

Whether or not that is officially acknowledged or not it is the way things happen and its a tad weird that legislation just happened to turn up at the same time because things like that dont just happen.

I actually do know a bit about how the Corporate State and Interest Group poliitics works in Ireland and legislation reflects such coalitions and that is the way the system works.

As an example, it would not be unheard of for the religous right to align themselves with feminist groupings for legislation on pornography or the sex industry.

You had similar groupings/allignments at play here and to say such things are mutually exclusive is just plain nieve. Legislation reflects the interest groups involved and it is deliberate and not accidental. To say otherwise is not to acknowledge how the system works and how laws are lobbied for and enacted in Ireland -legislation does just not happen that way -it is a deliberate process.

I am not against equal rights for gays and lesbians, what I am against is how the representative organisations so alligned themselves to get it thru as is evidenced by the legislation enacted. That is how the system works and it reflects such groupings.

It does not change my view on the rights of gays but it does change my views on the representative organisations and how they appear to conduct business and as a heterosexual bloke I would just file that away when assessing my support for any future canpaigns.

Shenshen

sdonn wrote: »

As per the opinion I've voiced here before, absolutely no. Civil partnership yes, but only with a proviso that they can't adopt kids - purely because society will be ridiculously hard on the children, whether it's justified or not makes no difference, no kid should be put through that. Kids need maternal influence, also. (No comparisons to single parent households please, not the same thing and I won't entertain that argument).

I remember not too long ago that same argument being brought forward against inter-racial marriages (The kids will be freaks, they will get bullied!!!) and the adoption of coloured children (see above)

If society has got a problem with children, I do think it's society that need to be changed, not the circumstances of the children.

Kids will grow up happiest with mentally stable, loving male and female parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and peers.
My mom bought into the whole "children need a father" argument long enough to seriously damage both me and my brothers, so the whole "children need somebody of a certain sexual persuasion" is frankly utter bollocks.

whatado

sdonn wrote: »

As per the opinion I've voiced here before, absolutely no. Civil partnership yes, but only with a proviso that they can't adopt kids - purely because society will be ridiculously hard on the children, whether it's justified or not makes no difference, no kid should be put through that. Kids need maternal influence, also. (No comparisons to single parent households please, not the same thing and I won't entertain that argument).

sdonn wrote: »

First off, don't go calling me old, I'm only 22 :rolleyes:

Bullying is still a very real problem in many schools - I got a lot of it as a small kid and it was over the sillyest of things, nevermind giving the bullies a reason.



Sorry, but I don't see that the view is bigoted. in a perfect world, I'd have no problem with it and morally, although I have reservations, I agree that it's certainly better than living in an insitution. However, the phrase don't stoke the fire comes to mind - an analogy would be if you don't provoke a fight you don't get one. I f you don't provide society with a reason to shun kids in a gay relationship, then they won't be so shunned. Society isn't ready for it. I do believe it would have a negative effect on the kids as well. They ideally need input from parents of both genders. Playing with that is to me a little out there, and should be best avoided.

I can't pretend I could possibly understand a desire to marry a man - It's an alien concept - but that doesn't negate all my reasons for being against its legality.

What can I say, I disagree. For reasons, some of which, maybe I simply can't manipulate into words.

how stupid is all that, you basically are saying single parents its ok, but gay, no because they need two parents, i personally think your just homophobic or just dont realise what your talking about.

Annasopra

CDfm wrote: »

The way it looks to me and the way legislation gets enacted and campigned for is that you have various interest groups involved in the issue and their views are included within the legislation enacted.

Whether or not that is officially acknowledged or not it is the way things happen and its a tad weird that legislation just happened to turn up at the same time because things like that dont just happen.

I actually do know a bit about how the Corporate State and Interest Group poliitics works in Ireland and legislation reflects such coalitions and that is the way the system works.

As an example, it would not be unheard of for the religous right to align themselves with feminist groupings for legislation on pornography or the sex industry.

You had similar groupings/allignments at play here and to say such things are mutually exclusive is just plain nieve. Legislation reflects the interest groups involved and it is deliberate and not accidental. To say otherwise is not to acknowledge how the system works and how laws are lobbied for and enacted in Ireland -legislation does just not happen that way -it is a deliberate process.

I am not against equal rights for gays and lesbians, what I am against is how the representative organisations so alligned themselves to get it thru as is evidenced by the legislation enacted. That is how the system works and it reflects such groupings.

It does not change my view on the rights of gays but it does change my views on the representative organisations and how they appear to conduct business and as a heterosexual bloke I would just file that away when assessing my support for any future canpaigns.

I'm not entirely sure what alliances you are talking about here

Also there is 1 'representative' group who has been at the lobbying table the entire time Glen - they are not popular within the LGBT community because they decided unilaterally not to lobby for marriage - so even a considerable number of the LGBT community doesn't support this group

Sam Vimes

sdonn wrote: »

Bullying is still a very real problem in many schools - I got a lot of it as a small kid and it was over the sillyest of things, nevermind giving the bullies a reason

So you got bullied for loads of different things in schools but you want to single out one thing that you think people might be bullied for and make it illegal

kids get awful bullying for being fat. should the government legally force fat kids to go on diets to avoid giving the bullies a reason?

That irish girl in America a few months ago who committed suicide over bullying. That was down to her having a relationship with one of the footballers. Should foreign people be legally prevented from having relationships with locals? Or maybe all relationships should be illegal at that age. We don't want to give the bullies a reason after all!

Here's a challenge: try to come up with a scenario where schoolyard bullying should be the motivation for making something illegal that sounds in any way less ludicrous than the two examples I just gave.

And when you can't think of any, ask yourself is it any less ludicrous to make gay adoption illegal for that reason

PeterIanStaker

gay marriage should be legal end of story.

Time for Irish catholofascism to pack it in.

Who are they to say who should and shouldn't be happy together?

CDfm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what alliances you are talking about here

Also there is 1 'representative' group who has been at the lobbying table the entire time Glen - they are not popular within the LGBT community because they decided unilaterally not to lobby for marriage - so even a considerable number of the LGBT community doesn't support this group

Johnnymcg - I am not having a pop and do believe in gay marriage rights, however, I do know how the lobbying system in Ireland actually works and the legislation did get passed with the extreme womens rights groups agenda.

What I am saying is that because of this, people like me, who instinctively would have supported campaigns would now be less likely to do so.

That does not mean my beliefs have changed or that I have become anti gay or lesbian but that I would not be supportive of campaigns.

I am just being honest here as the legislation was a real kick in the teeth for heterosxual fathers and their rights.

whatado

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

gay marriage should be legal end of story.

Time for Irish catholofascism to pack it in.

Who are they to say who should and shouldn't be happy together?

+1

MagicSean

We need to completely seperate civil marraige and religious marraige. Civil marraige should be allowed for anyone and bring with it all the benefits married couples are entitled to.

Chuchoter

CDfm wrote: »

Johnnymcg - I am not having a pop and do believe in gay marriage rights, however, I do know how the lobbying system in Ireland actually works and the legislation did get passed with the extreme womens rights groups agenda.

What I am saying is that because of this, people like me, who instinctively would have supported campaigns would now be less likely to do so.

That does not mean my beliefs have changed or that I have become anti gay or lesbian but that I would not be supportive of campaigns.

I am just being honest here as the legislation was a real kick in the teeth for heterosxual fathers and their rights.

Extreme womens rights groups? Do we even have those? The legislation was a real kick in the teeth for everyone, not just straight men. If you are the non-biological mother of a baby, that kid has nothing to do with you and your partner can waltz off whenever she wants and take the child.

What you really should be aware of is no-one in the gay community really wanted civil partnership. We wanted marriage and we got some other **** we should never have agreed with and I think the part that affected straight people was very unfair. The entire bill was a shambles and I'd really rather it didn't exist at all.

Tbh I don't really think gay marriage and single fathers rights are inherently related. We need new legislation on fathers rights and we need same sex couples to be included in civil marriage.

Mars Bar

I haven't read through this thread, but I'm all for gay marriage and gay parents.

Elton John and David Furnish became parents to a young Zachary on Christmas Day and they'll be great parents!

Craebear

Now c'mon lads. We can't be legalising stuff like this because it might hurt the feelings of some Catholics.

CDfm

crayolastereo wrote: »

What you really should be aware of is no-one in the gay community really wanted civil partnership. We wanted marriage and we got some other **** we should never have agreed with and I think the part that affected straight people was very unfair. The entire bill was a shambles and I'd really rather it didn't exist at all.

Tbh I don't really think gay marriage and single fathers rights are inherently related. We need new legislation on fathers rights and we need same sex couples to be included in civil marriage.

My comments really refer to what happened and the mechanics of the lobbying etc. Some politicians say they would never enter government with SF and it is for this type of reason.

Craebear wrote: »

Now c'mon lads. We can't be legalising stuff like this because it might hurt the feelings of some Catholics.

Maybe so, but don't you think that Catholic groups have very little real influence on social issues and policy at the moment.

If gay couples get to foster and adopt dont you think the already short supply of children available is stretched even further.

I dont think you are dealing with reality of how laws are made in this country unless you tackle the beliefs of the actual decision makers. So these policies are made by groups such as social workers and womens groups. That is how policy is formed for government.

Politics is about getting elected.

Does any legislation prohibit gay adoption or fostering?

ScumLord

Craebear wrote: »

Now c'mon lads. We can't be legalising stuff like this because it might hurt the feelings of some Catholics.

How do you know they'll be great parents? From what I've seen and heard of Elton John he's still a big spoilt child himself.

Banjo Fella

I think that two people who love one another should be allowed to marry, irrespective of their gender. I don't get why it's such a disagreeable notion. S'just love, babeh! Aw yeah, etc.

One of the main arguments I've heard against it is that it "undermines the integrity of marriage". Which is, er, sort of a rubbish form of reasoning. There are already plenty of straight couples who don't take their marriages seriously enough, so that's being accomplished just fine as it is. Also, the gay people I'm friends with are some of the most committed, trustworthy people I could imagine, they'd do a great job of representing what loving somebody should be about. Perhaps having to deal with a lot of prejudice and pain makes you more likely to be considerate and aware of other people's feelings.

jill_valentine

I don't know who these mysterious female extremist groups are, but they seem to exist solely in boards.ie conversations about mens rights.

CDfm

jill_valentine wrote: »

I don't know who these mysterious female extremist groups are, but they seem to exist solely in boards.ie conversations about mens rights.

Ireland has a very highly defined and established system of interest group politics, and it should not be the case that it is as partisan as it is , but it is.

I always think when you speak about equality you should be able to do so across the board as that what it means.

I dont really want to engage in a debate about what happened and the only reason I posted on the issue is that I have been discussing Corporate Statism elsewhere in the context of Irish Government & Politics and I thought that it might be useful in terms of the debate here to point out the mechanics of the system and why the legislative changes were made the way they have been.

You should be able to discuss and analyse it openly and on this issue point out that what was achieved was not done without a bit of bloodletting and it may or may not be how the LGBT community want to be represented by its interest groups.

I did a google for misandry just for fun for those not familiar with the word for those not familiar with the concept.

[SIZE=-1]Tuesday, November 25, 1997[/SIZE] A hate that dares us
to breathe its name

Some readers have been puzzled by my use of the concept "misandry", as though it were one in everyday use. They have never heard of it, and cannot find it in their dictionaries. This in itself is an example of misandry.
For several decades now, if someone wanted to dismiss what a man was saying, a loud roar of "Misogyny!" was enough to activate the frowns of the guardians of our societal norms. Misogyny, as any Spice Girls fan will tell you, is "hatred of women". Misandry is "hatred of men": the hate that dares us to breathe its name.

The whole article is here

http://home.connect.ie/smacsuibhne/kids/john_waters/jw12.htm

Some cool video links on a misandry collection here for those who want a look. It came up when I googled.

http://vodpod.com/tag/misandry

Equality for everybody

Kimono-Girl

Banjo Fella wrote: »

I think that two people who love one another should be allowed to marry, irrespective of their gender. I don't get why it's such a disagreeable notion. S'just love, babeh! Aw yeah, etc.

One of the main arguments I've heard against it is that it "undermines the integrity of marriage". Which is, er, sort of a rubbish form of reasoning. There are already plenty of straight couples who don't take their marriages seriously enough, so that's being accomplished just fine as it is. Also, the gay people I'm friends with are some of the most committed, trustworthy people I could imagine, they'd do a great job of representing what loving somebody should be about. Perhaps having to deal with a lot of prejudice and pain makes you more likely to be considerate and aware of other people's feelings.

+1 million!

i also think that two people who love one another should be allowed to marry, irrespective of their gender or sexuality!

CDfm

mars bar wrote: »

I haven't read through this thread, but I'm all for gay marriage and gay parents.

Elton John and David Furnish became parents to a young Zachary on Christmas Day and they'll be great parents!

I just wonder if everyone will agree with you. The Irish feminist writer and broadcaster Brenda Power has different ideas

It is simply unfair to suggest taking a child, presumably conceived by a heterosexual couple, and placing them in an entirely different dynamic and in a family unit that makes them different from the start. That’s not about insulting or undermining homosexual partners; it’s about prioritising the rights of the child.
Which isn’t to say there aren’t loving and secure same-sex couples who could give a wonderful upbringing to an adopted child. There are plenty of single parents, too, doing a good job of bringing up children on their own, but few of them have any qualms about accepting that their arrangement is not the ideal one.
Lots of people hang on in terrible marriages because they believe that male and female role models, however flawed, are essential for a child’s early development and sense of identity. That’s not necessarily true, of course, and there’s an increasingly vocal body of opinion suggesting that a calm and happy home, rather than a fraught but outwardly conventional one, offers children a far better start in life.
An outwardly unconventional home, though, can be just as fraught. Not all homosexual couples are pillars of fidelity and cosy domesticity. And children, especially adoptive children who may have escaped strife or trauma in infancy, need to feel that they fit in.
While the gay community in this country chooses to express itself in the manner of last week’s Pride march, deliberately provoking reaction and comment, keen to shock and primed to take umbrage if the wrong pronoun is applied to a bloke in a dress, there’s not much chance of that.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6637267.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

And before anyone has a go - I found the link here http://www.gaycork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9265

Brenda Power, my new most loathed human

Over the years years, I've rarely been so shocked and outraged as to read something and then instantly write a letter of complaint.

Her article in the 5th of July Sunday Times. Make sure to check all the comments

Chuchoter

And Brenda Power is just the picture of acceptance and non-biased opinion. She is just some broadcaster spouting her unfounded opinions.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

It has been proven that a stable home environment is exponentially more important than having a man and a woman in a relationship. The issue is people listening to Power and the like instead of the facts. We pretend like we've 'grown out' of homophobia and we're too modern for those things, really we just rephrased it.

flag123

right this is thread isn't biased :rolleyes: - sarcastic by the way

Why does it say "no, I hate everyone including myself" as the one of the options.

Can it not be a simple yes or no?