Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

Iwasfrozen

Aard wrote: »

This surprises me; previously you wouldn't accept anecdotal evidence and now when asked about scientific evidence you can't provide any. Your argument is falling apart.

No it means that I couldn't find any with a quick google search, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Iwasfrozen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You did a search & couldn't find anything to back up your assertion that sexual orientation is driven wholly by environmental factors - so can we put that myth to bed now or are you still holding out for a future breakthrough?

Would you kindly point out where a said that "sexual orientation is driven wholly by environmental factors", I remember saying that there wasn't any certain evidence for one way or another and that the topic is still controversial.

Aard

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it means that I couldn't find any with a quick google search, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Perhaps you remember which journal you read it in so?

Iwasfrozen

Aard wrote: »

Perhaps you remember which journal you read it in so?

I read in the wikipedia article quoted in this thread.

ChocolateSauce

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Did a search, couldn't find anything.


So if you where straight at 3 wouldn't it be safe to assume that you became homosexual later in life ?
Hence in your case it was "nurture" rather than "nature" ?

Misunderstanding here: I am straight. "So straight I'll go through a guy to get to a girl" is how my girlfriend puts it actually. I've never been attracted to men.

Ickle Magoo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Would you kindly point out where a said that "sexual orientation is driven wholly by environmental factors", I remember saying that there wasn't any certain evidence for one way or another and that the topic is still controversial.

You said:

...there is still no certain evidence that homosexuality is "nature" rather than "nurture"

Rather than = instead of where I come from, maybe you have a different definition? If you had maintained from the start that, at the very least, both genetic & environmental factors were pertinent then your point re genetic factors not having been proven would have been moot.

Tricity Bendix

Jakkass wrote: »

giddyboots, everyone already has the right to get married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The issue here isn't the right to marriage, but to redefine marriage.

In America, once upon a time, all black kids had the right to go to public school, just so long as they didn't want to go to one with white kids in it.

Eulick D

The best thing about gay marriage is that domestic violence has now gotten fairer.

philologos

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

In America, once upon a time, all black kids had the right to go to public school, just so long as they didn't want to go to one with white kids in it.

If homosexuality were in any way comparable to race this argument might be worth having. If civil unions offer a way for LGBT couples to pursue a relationship together I don't possibly see what the issue is. If any issues arise with the current procedure they should lobby for a change in the Civil Partnership Act rather than changing the definition of marriage legally which would involve a referendum.

Ickle Magoo

Why shouldn't it go to referendum? I think it would pass. Maybe that's why people would rather avoid one?

I.J.

I think its this simple. If a single person can adopt a child, and it does happen even if rare, gay couples should be allowed adopt. A gay couple, just like a single person, is raising the child without the other sex present.

Tricity Bendix

Jakkass wrote: »

If homosexuality were in any way comparable to race this argument might be worth having.

They are in many ways comparable. For starters, it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of race or sexuality in this country under equality legislation. Furthermore, sexuality, like race, is not something an individual can choose - regardless of where one might stand on the nature/nurture argument.

If civil unions offer a way for LGBT couples to pursue a relationship together I don't possibly see what the issue is.

Black children could pursue their educational goals (to an extent) within a segregated school system. That didn't make it any less wrong.

If any issues arise with the current procedure they should lobby for a change in the Civil Partnership Act rather than changing the definition of marriage legally which would involve a referendum.

Personally, I'd be all for the creation of a civil partnership arrangement, open to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals and bisexuals, that granted all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage without necessarily using the word "marriage". Kinda like the UK system of civil partnerships, which everyone calls gay marriage anyway, despite what it says in legislation. It would still require a referendum, in my opinion, as creating a separate but equal institution could easily be seen as an attack on the special institution of marriage.

Blue_Wolf

We are a Catholic Country as a majority. This goes against peoples beliefs, even though most of them sin monday-Saturday and just go to church to beg for forgiveness but nevertheless I think that's the main reason.

Religion is the main reason why people have issues with gay marriage

Joey the lips

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Religion is the main reason why people have issues with gay marriage

Not true of me! not my wife! We are religious. If i have issues its because i am a bigot or some pce of sh1t like that. I have no reason to object to it.

Although at the start I did say adoption might be an issue for me.

the_syco

MultiUmm wrote: »

Others, mainly Christians, argue that gay couples will want to marry in churches, when in reality I'd guess most gay couples wouldn't be too pushed about a religious ceremony.

Marraige = religous ceremony.

The religons have a list of what it won't do. One is to marry gay people, it would seem.

I think the same rights as marraige should be given to those in a Civil Union.

As for the topic of kids, I question how does it benifit the kid?

ChocolateSauce

the_syco wrote: »

Marraige = religous ceremony.

Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is a legal contract signed by a registrar. God himself could wed two people and it is meaningless legally.

If a church doesn't want to wed gay people, that is their business, but they need to stay out of the way of civil marriage, a contract with actual substance.

nozzferrahhtoo

MultiUmm wrote: »

But why should the Catholic church have such a strangle hold on what the goverment decides about children, adoption, gay rights etc? We can't let the Catholic church dictate to us on how to run things

Why indeed, but alas it is basic political science.

If two people go before a Politician to argue gay marriage, say a leader of a Gay community and a bishop, the first thing out of their mouths will be:

"Hi I am Mr. X and I represent 1000 people in my association" followed by "Hi I am Bishop Y and I represent well over 3 million people in ireland".

It is simply a war of numbers for politicians as we all know and many of them will bypass the ethics of an issue and look only at the number of voters they want to please.

This is why sites like www.countmeout.ie are important. Not because it is an attack on faith, the faithful, or a church but because it allows people who do not feel the Church represents them anymore to remove themselves from that list of numbers that Bishop Y claims he speaks for.

nozzferrahhtoo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The experiments are already done, because millions of openly gay people have been raising children for decades.

This is an important point and sinks the boat of anyone who claims allowing gay marriage will somehow open the flood gates of gay adoption.

Think for a second, that when people are married and apply for adoption the evaluate of suitability is done based on both potential parents.

Then single people can adopt, and the evaluation is done on the basis of the one parent.

However the single person can have any partner who would now be outside the scope of the evaluation as they would not be registered as having anything to do with it. The evaluators simply would not know any better.

Allowing gay marriage would in fact put the second partner INTO The scope of evaluation when considering the adoption, which allows for better evaluations and results from same.

So, far from causing gay adoption, gay marriage would actually more formalise the process and might even lead to a couple being denied a child based on unsuitability that might have in fact gotten one if only one of them had applied singly. Whereas now without marriage they are perfectly able to go through the adoption process.

Also, if both gay parents were unmarried and one of them adopted, and both gay parents were wiped out in a car crash, the child would not stand to inherit from the second parent, the one that is not on the adoption papers. So the child could lose out here terribly.

In fact considering gay couples therefore CAN get children singly by adoption I can not think of one adoption issue that gay marriage would make worse. I however can not say the same thing about not having it.

philologos

countmeout.ie isn't going to be a major threat to the Catholic Church. 2,098 from their entire counted population of over 3 million. People can have their choice, but people pretending that this is going to sway the Catholic Church in any way are mistaken

Even still, critics of gay marriage aren't exclusively Catholic, or Christian, nor are they exclusively religious.

As for single adoption, I don't think that is a particularly good idea either.

nozzferrahhtoo

This is why I said "sites like" it. It is this kind of thing people need to start doing. Having people speak in your name who no longer speak in your name is damaging in any society. It is the right STEP, but I am more than aware that it is only a step.

My point was independant of whether single adoption is a "good idea" or not. I am coming at the point from the other side. Some people on this thread and in society are openly anti gay marriage SOLELY because of gay adoption. Theres users who have said as much on this thread which I have just this second completed reading end to end.

However the fact is gay adoption is happening already, by single parents. So this instantly mutes the point they are trying to make. Gay marriage can not cause something to start happening that is already happening. These children ARE being adopted and they ARE often living with the parent and a gay partner.

However given that it is happening, the carers in this case NOT being married does lead to harm (such as but not limited to the example I gave of inheritance).

So if Gay Marriage will NOT cause what they think it will cause, but not having it DOES cause the child to suffer in some ways, then I am failing to see how the point the anti-gay marriage lobby are making on here is relevant. In my mind if having something causes literally no harm, but not having it causes even a little harm, then where is the conversation? The net benefit / cost analysis is instantly coming down on one side.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

As for single adoption, I don't think that is a particularly good idea either.

As long as you accept that single people are legally allowed to have biological children, you must also accept that single people who have met the stringent requirements for adoption are allowed to do so.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As long as you accept that single people are legally allowed to have biological children, you must also accept that single people who have met the stringent requirements for adoption are allowed to do so.

Just because a law exists, does not mean that one cannot disagree with a law.

ChocolateSauce

So are you saying that you don't think a good parent should be allowed to adopt, but a bad parent who has a child should be allowed to raise it?

The only way you could reconcile those two positions is by taking the position that adoption is flawed, that adoptive families are fundamentally inferior to biological ones, and that it is better for the child to be raised badly by their real parent than properly by someone who chose them.

shoegirl

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As long as you accept that single people are legally allowed to have biological children, you must also accept that single people who have met the stringent requirements for adoption are allowed to do so.

Only within very exceptional circumstances, though. Its extremely difficult to adopt as a single person, and normally only if the child is the child of a deceased relative which the single person has looked after or who is giving up parentship - the idea being a grandparent of the child would normally be this single person. Its not as if any old singleton can stroll into one of the adoption agencies and be treated the same as a married couple - they will not. They will be very heavily discriminated against.

What the gay community has entirely ignored is that the current system of parenting "rights" is basically adult/marriage focused - the child is a chattel of the relationship - the classic example of this being the Baby Leane case where it was considered that the constitutional rights of the "family" as they had since married were more protected by law to what amounts to virtual ownership of that child than the child had a right to the parents who were best capable of caring for them.

To this day I recall the example of a druggie couple who were handed back on a plate a 7 year old they'd shat into foster care for years - they were both dead within 2 more years, the childs life already ruined - and the child was then shat back to the original foster carer with all the problems newly acquired. Thank you Eastern Health Board. This isn't an uncommon occurance because the "rights" of the parents if they are married are considered superior in law than the childs rights. This is precisely why there will be a childrens rights referendum.

I am very dismayed

1. that the gay community have entirely ignored the fact that the entire legal mechanism of adoption in Ireland centres mainly around anachronistic religious societies ("adoption societies") who do the administration and who would be more than happy to automatically discriminate against gay couples as they are entitled to do under the Equality Act exceptions for relgious organisations. Without a fundamental change in this the only route to adoption would be placement via the HSE which remains the only adoption body outside the long arm of the churches. Not a single syllable has been uttered to date on this question.
2. That as a result of the Baby Leane case children are effectively the chattels (or property) of a magically specially protected institution under the terms of the constitution which if "adopted" into same terms would make the gay community ust as guilty of inflcting a gross injustice on the children of Ireland, who right now cannot be guaranteed that an adoption (or non adoption) will guarantee that the eventual parents are those who will be in THEIR best interest. Writing this into any gay marriage or partnership legislation would only compound the gross inequality of children under current law.
3. Most countries which now have gay marriage with equality terms to straight couples took the initial route of bringing in civil partnerships - often on a regional or local basis. Very few countries brought the full marriage status in straight away - except for California, where the gay community will be paying for the consquences for the backlash against this leap until at least 2012 when the gay lobby reckon is the earliest they will be able to win a revoking proposition (source here).
4. There hasn't really been much thought about how appropriate marriage like monogamous relationships are for the gay community, given that the kind of forms of relationships are far more free and fluid than hetero ones. Its more philosphical, but did we really spend years fighting injustices like Operation Spanner and anti cottaging laws so we can waltz down the aisle like the most domesticated heterosexual couples - just a thought.

What I am really saying is that really the whole very archiac system of adoption would need to be changed before gay couples could adopt as right now there would be a grossly poor service given that most of the agencies would have a right to discriminate as religious organisations.

philologos

What is so "archaic" about it?

Tricity Bendix

shoegirl wrote: »

There hasn't really been much thought about how appropriate marriage like monogamous relationships are for the gay community, given that the kind of forms of relationships are far more free and fluid than hetero ones.

Oh please! Some of us are more than capable of having stable, monogamous relationships. Why should we be punished for the promiscuity of others?

shoegirl

Jakkass wrote: »

What is so "archaic" about it?

Because of its structure - we effectively never changed the system established in the 1950s to deal with the "problem" as perceived at the time in a meaningful enough way as to remove the influence of religious organisations from the systems:

Adoption in Ireland is regulated by the Adoption Board / Authority which is an independent quasi judicial statutory body appointed by Government. Adoptions in Ireland commenced on the 1st January, 1953 with the enactment of the Adoption Act, 1952.

Ok this and all that follows is from the Adoption Authority website. Note that it is "regulated" by the board, not administered by them. The administration is carried out by the legitimate adoption authorities - i.e. Adoption societies and the HSE.

[FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva]Non-relative adoptions are applications made on behalf of children placed by Health Boards and Registered Adoption Societies. Usually, these Adoption Orders are made with the consent of the birth mother. Under the Adoption Acts, 1952 - 1976 an adoption order can be made only in respect of a child: -
• who is an orphan, or
• whose parents are not married to each other, or
• whose parents married each other after the child's birth but whose birth has not been re-registered
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

So who are these adoption societies?

• Cunamh (formerly known as 'Catholic Protection and Rescue Society of Ireland' (CPRSI).)
• PACT (Protestant Adoption Society) - used to know quite a few active members, all Church of Ireland, though I think it represents all non-catholic denominations
  
• St Louise Adoption Society - effectively the HSE?
  
• St Anne's Adoption Society - Cork city Catholic Diocesan address
• St Catherine's Adoption Society - address shared by other Catholic groups including ACCORD (would appear to have some Catholic connection)

Groups no longer placing children

• R.G.A.S. (Rotunda Girls Aid Society) - address is a Catholic Dublin diocesecan address
• St Patrick's Guild - Irish Sisters of Charity
• St Brigid's Adoption Society - Holy Faith order
• Sacred Heart Adoption Society - according to www.adoptionloss.ie - "This Society is operated by the Order of nuns which ran three "Mother and Baby Homes""
• St Attracta's Adoption Society - Bishop's address is the same in Sligo
• St Mura's Adoption Society - located as the "pastoral centre"
  

Note that every one of the groups except for the HSE and possibly PACT (who no longer mention their affliliations to the CofI) are either diocesan Catholic backed or catholic religious order backed. As such they would be legitimately entitled to discriminate under the current terms of the Equality Act on the grounds of religious ethics.

And what children are eligible for adoptions?

[FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva]The law permits the adoption of:
• orphans, and
• children born outside marriage, including in certain circumstances, children whose natural parents subsequently marry each other.
In addition, in exceptional cases, the High Court may make orders under section 3 of the Adoption Act, 1988, authorising the adoption of children whose parents have failed in their duty of care towards them.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

I.E. in order for the adoption of a child who has two living and married parents to take place, a high court order needs to be made and ONLY in "exceptional" cases where parents have failed in their duty of care.

In other words, under normal circumstances, parents who are married cannot place a child for adoption. I would consider this archiac in that is creates yet another legal distinction between children of married/non-married parents.

Why is it anachronistic?

Just look at the language used.

[FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva]A child born to a married woman but whose husband is not the father, is eligible for adoption provided the facts of the child's paternity can be proven to the satisfaction of the Adoption Board.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

No mention of a child who is the child of a married father (but "other" mother). The implication here is of course that somehow the child isn't "really" entitled to full protection under the "normal" marriage requirement.

[FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva][FONT=verdana,geneva]A child born outside marriage who is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the natural parents is eligible for adoption[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

SIC

Notice the constant determinant of "legitimacy" as being with a marriage is continously used, despite this ostensibly being dismissed as a legal term some years ago! HOW MORE ARCHIAC CAN YOU GET???????????

philologos

shoegirl wrote: »

Because of its structure - we effectively never changed the system established in the 1950s to deal with the "problem" as perceived at the time in a meaningful enough way as to remove the influence of religious organisations from the systems:

1. Why should they be removed?

shoegirl wrote: »

Note that every one of the groups except for the HSE and possibly PACT (who no longer mention their affliliations to the CofI) are either diocesan Catholic backed or catholic religious order backed. As such they would be legitimately entitled to discriminate under the current terms of the Equality Act on the grounds of religious ethics.

2. What is so wrong with religious organisations being involved?

shoegirl wrote: »

And what children are eligible for adoptions?

I.E. in order for the adoption of a child who has two living and married parents to take place, a high court order needs to be made and ONLY in "exceptional" cases where parents have failed in their duty of care.

In other words, under normal circumstances, parents who are married cannot place a child for adoption. I would consider this archiac in that is creates yet another legal distinction between children of married/non-married parents.

I'd consider this entirely appropriate. If the child has two biological parents that can adequately take care of it, there is no reason why the child should be put up for adoption.

shoegirl wrote: »

Why is it anachronistic?

3. Is it at all?

shoegirl wrote: »

Just look at the language used.



No mention of a child who is the child of a married father (but "other" mother). The implication here is of course that somehow the child isn't "really" entitled to full protection under the "normal" marriage requirement.

I have looked at it. In this case the distinguishing factor is that the child's biological father isn't present, and that this has some impact in how adoptable the child is. That makes some sense, but I would be in disagreement on this part. It probably should be reciprocal in relation to the mother too. I think the assumption is more that the child will most likely be with its mother over the father in case family issues arise.

shoegirl wrote: »

SIC

Notice the constant determinant of "legitimacy" as being with a marriage is continously used, despite this ostensibly being dismissed as a legal term some years ago! HOW MORE ARCHIAC CAN YOU GET???????????

Perhaps, but not completely archaic. Your main objection to it being archaic is that there is involvement by religious organisations. The presence of religious organisations in this country isn't archaic in any way. I don't think shutting down organisations that largely exist for the good is an effective means of dealing with this problem, and would end up causing more discord than good.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

1. Why should they be removed?



2. What is so wrong with religious organisations being involved?

Because they openly discriminate and they have lots of openly discriminatory dogma. You may agree with all or some of that discrimination but many people believe discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation has no place in a modern society. If an organisation cannot remain impartial and treat all people equally as per the human rights charter, then the state should step up and do the job properly.

a-ha

Aard wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that adoption is the primary reason people don't want gay marriage.

You seem to forget that being gay or bi doesn't make you infertile. Plenty of gay or bisexual people can and do already have children. The problem with the refusal thusfar to allow civil marriage for everybody regardless of orientation is that their children enjoy far fewer legal protections, including inheritance.