Full rights for the LGBT community.

Pride Fighter

Currently on RTE there is a show on called growing up gay. This is an excellent first step on the road to equal rights for people in the LGBT community.

However there is a lack of political will on behalf of most political parties to give them equal rights. Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children. Surely it is about time we grow up as a nation and do not discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation.

Iwasfrozen

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Currently on RTE there is a show on called growing up gay. This is an excellent first step on the road to equal rights for people in the LGBT community.

However there is a lack of political will on behalf of most political parties to give them equal rights. Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children. Surely it is about time we grow up as a nation and do not discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation.

For the last time. Gay people are not discriminated against, they are not second class citizens. They have the same rights to marraige and adoption as hetrosexual people.

There is no nor ever was a law saying homosexual people cannot marry and/or adopt.

Sulmac

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For the last time. Gay people are not discriminated against, they are not second class citizens. They have the same rights to marraige and adoption as hetrosexual people.

There is no nor ever was a law saying homosexual people cannot marry and/or adopt.

Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.

Gay people are discriminated against in a number of ways; gay men can't donate blood (a hangover from the AIDS crisis in the 1980s), gay couples can't adopt (single gays can, as can unmarried straight couples) and they cannot marry each other.

Although marriage isn't strictly defined as between a man and a woman in the Constitution, it has been interpreted as such (although this may change with the expected Zappone Supreme Court case verdict due this year). Furthermore, the Civil Registration Act 2004 defines marriage as between a man and woman only.

Gay teachers can also be fired simply for being gay ("ethos" and all that shite), under Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act (an ironic clause, I think you'll agree). Transexuals also have no right to change their legal gender, despite this being contrary to EU law (the Foy case).

Also, OP, as far as I'm aware attitudes are changing within all parties to the issue. Sinn Féin, the Greens and Labour have always been vocal on LGBT rights, and Ógra Fianna Fáil recently came out with their "Marriage Equality" document which would deal with all the issues I've outlined above. Even some elements within Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are progressing.

Iwasfrozen

Sulmac wrote: »

Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.

I was being pedantic.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sulmac wrote: »

Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.

Although marriage isn't strictly defined as between a man and a woman in the Constitution, it has been interpreted as such (although this may change with the expected Zappone Supreme Court case verdict due this year). Furthermore, the Civil Registration Act 2004 defines marriage as between a man and woman only.

Agree here. Law should be changed so that one can marry someone of the same sex.

Gay people are discriminated against in a number of ways; gay men can't donate blood (a hangover from the AIDS crisis in the 1980s),

Completely disagree here. First of all what you said is untrue. Gay men who have not taken part in a homosexual act can donate. Gay women who have taken part in a homosexual act can donate. Its nothing to do with sexuality. I am straight but if I took part in a sexual act with another man for porn/prostitution/was raped I would be banned.

Its for medical reasons. Although sexually active gay men make up less than 5% of the population, over 20% of recorded HIV cases in 2007 were from men having sex with men. The transmission rate is far too high to risk allowing their blood into the system.

Its not just gay men. Bodybuilders who are highly likely to get clean needles for steroids are banned. Virgins from sub-saharan Africa are banned etc.

Gay teachers can also be fired simply for being gay ("ethos" and all that shite), under Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act (an ironic clause, I think you'll agree). Transexuals also have no right to change their legal gender, despite this being contrary to EU law (the Foy case).

Once again agree here this is insane.

oppenheimer1

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Currently on RTE there is a show on called growing up gay. This is an excellent first step on the road to equal rights for people in the LGBT community.

However there is a lack of political will on behalf of most political parties to give them equal rights. Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children. Surely it is about time we grow up as a nation and do not discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation.

What rights are gay people denied?

Sulmac

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Completely disagree here. First of all what you said is untrue. Gay men who have not taken part in a homosexual act can donate. Gay women who have taken part in a homosexual act can donate. Its nothing to do with sexuality. I am straight but if I took part in a sexual act with another man for porn/prostitution/was raped I would be banned.

Its for medical reasons. Although sexually active gay men make up less than 5% of the population, over 20% of recorded HIV cases in 2007 were from men having sex with men. The transmission rate is far too high to risk allowing their blood into the system.

Its not just gay men. Bodybuilders who are highly likely to get clean needles for steroids are banned. Virgins from sub-saharan Africa are banned etc.

Well, I meant men who have had sex with men. Although 20% of (diagnosed) HIV cases happen to be such men, I think a blanket ban is just stupid and clearly discriminatory. They should adopt what Ógra Fianna Fáil suggested and instead have a different definition of "risk"; such as steroid users (like you mentioned), drug abusers, or anyone who has unprotected sexual intercourse with many partners (heterosexual or homosexual), etc. I'm not 100% sure, but I think Italy does this. If they have good screening processes, anyone should be allowed to donate.

Denerick

I would say that the remaining legal restrictions people go on about with regards to homosexuals are overstated - there aren't that many, and the protest about the ban on blood donations is slightly hysterical.

What the LGBT community needs to tackle is CULTURAL discrimination. Personally I think this could be moved a lot further if certain gay people stopped creating a 'culture' based around a sexuality, a counter-productive development which only alienates those who aren't particularly interested in flowery displays of public affection.

Just a thought. Few educated people care about where someone likes to put their genitals, but this manifestation of a 'gay' culture is counter productive to say the least.

oppenheimer1

Sulmac wrote: »

Either you're being pedantic (in that, gay people can marry, but to members of the opposite sex :rolleyes:) or just ignorant.

Gay people are discriminated against in a number of ways; gay men can't donate blood (a hangover from the AIDS crisis in the 1980s), gay couples can't adopt (single gays can, as can unmarried straight couples) and they cannot marry each other.

Although marriage isn't strictly defined as between a man and a woman in the Constitution, it has been interpreted as such (although this may change with the expected Zappone Supreme Court case verdict due this year). Furthermore, the Civil Registration Act 2004 defines marriage as between a man and woman only.

Gay teachers can also be fired simply for being gay ("ethos" and all that ****e), under Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act (an ironic clause, I think you'll agree). Transexuals also have no right to change their legal gender, despite this being contrary to EU law (the Foy case).

Also, OP, as far as I'm aware attitudes are changing within all parties to the issue. Sinn Féin, the Greens and Labour have always been vocal on LGBT rights, and Ógra Fianna Fáil recently came out with their "Marriage Equality" document which would deal with all the issues I've outlined above. Even some elements within Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are progressing.

Was the Foy case not about a transgendered dentist wanting to get their birth certificate to say that he was born female? The argument was that a birth certificate was a statement of fact at an event (the event being the persons birth) and operations subsequent to that event cannot change the fact that the person was male at the time of birth. Reasonable enough imo. For instance if I was born with some condition and this was recorded on the certificate, if I were subsequently to be cured I don't think it would be right to change the certificate. Similarly for gender.

Denerick

I should probably add that I think having a gay identity is rather silly and un-necessarily divisive. Take that Welsh rugby player who came out recently and begged not to be known as the 'gay' rugby player.

Liam Byrne

I would agree with a fair amount that the OP posted, but I would question their definition of "full rights".

Adoption is one of those, because by nature they can't have kids, and I cannot help thinking that there's a reason - in nature - for this.

On all other "equality" issues, no problem.

I do also think that this should go both ways, and that - as Denerick pointed out re the "Pride" Fighter username - equality shouldn't be divisive; if there was a "straight people's parade" some day then there would be screams of discrimination.

If sexuality is a "non-issue" then it should be a "non-issue" in both directions.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Adoption is one of those, because by nature they can't have kids, and I cannot help thinking that there's a reason - in nature - for this.

That argument also applies to many heterosexual couples, so one should either drop it, or follow it through to its logical conclusion, and refuse to allow heterosexual couples who cannot conceive to adopt. Also, men cannot naturally feed babies - perhaps bottled milk should be made illegal?

There is of course a reason - in nature - why two men cannot conceive together. It's because they both have the same half of the reproductive apparatus.

amused,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sulmac wrote: »

Well, I meant men who have had sex with men.

Thats what stops it from being discriminatory based on sexuality. As I pointed out a straight guy who works in gay porn is banned. A gay virgin isn't.

Although 20% of (diagnosed) HIV cases happen to be such men, I think a blanket ban is just stupid and clearly discriminatory.

When you're risking other people's HIV/HTLV/Hepatitis status you have to be very careful. As I pointed out its discrimnating against an activity, not a sexuality.

They should adopt what Ógra Fianna Fáil suggested and instead have a different definition of "risk"; such as steroid users (like you mentioned), drug abusers, or anyone who has unprotected sexual intercourse with many partners (heterosexual or homosexual), etc.

Why should they? Why are steroid users a high risk when they have easy access to safe needles and aren't off their faces from psychotropic drugs like heroin users?

You'd also be cutting out suitable donors. Men who have multiple female partners aren't high risk for blood borne infections. They're high risk for genital warts/chlamydia but these infections are irrelevant to blood donors. You don't seem to be aware a man would be far more likely to catch HIV/Hepatitis from an infected male than an infected female.

Also, no-one has a right to donate blood. Blood transfusion boards on the other hand have every right to choose who they accept blood from.

not 100% sure, but I think Italy does this. If they have good screening processes, anyone should be allowed to donate.

There's always good screening processes in a country like Ireland. Its the fact that human error is possible that they use all reasonable means to keep high risk category donors out of the system.

PeakOutput

they should definitely be allowed marry and they should more than likely be allowed adopt

im a little less sure on the adoption because threw no fault of their own having two parents of the same sex may adversely affect a child and i dont know enough about it

steelcityblues

I think a small group of people want to over-politicise homosexuality, even after the obvious progess that has been made in the last couple of decades.

It is an important issue, but in a time of health crisis, banking scandals, child sex abuse revelations, emigration, some LGBT campaigners sometimes fail to realise that their concerns are not foremost in the minds of a large chunk of the population!

spurious

PeakOutput wrote: »

im a little less sure on the adoption because threw no fault of their own having two parents of the same sex may adversely affect a child and i dont know enough about it

All studies show this is not true.
There is no 'may' about it.
It does not adversely affect a child, in fact quite the opposite.

Scofflaw

PeakOutput wrote: »

they should definitely be allowed marry and they should more than likely be allowed adopt

im a little less sure on the adoption because threw no fault of their own having two parents of the same sex may adversely affect a child and i dont know enough about it

Again, there are plenty of cases where having two parents of opposite sexes adversely affects the child. It tends to depend on the parents, and the child.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think a small group of people want to over-politicise homosexuality, even after the obvious progess that has been made in the last couple of decades.

It is an important issue, but in a time of health crisis, banking scandals, child sex abuse revelations, emigration, some LGBT campaigners sometimes fail to realise that their concerns are not foremost in the minds of a large chunk of the population!

In a way that shows how it needs to be politicised. I mean your basic message there is "we'll deal with your rights when everything else is sorted" LGB are a minority at 10% but remember Blacks only make up 13% of the US population.

I'd disagree this is something that can be put to one side for now.

steelcityblues

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

LGB are a minority at 10% but remember Blacks only make up 13% of the US population.

I'd disagree this is something that can be put to one side for now.

Bit of a silly comparison. This country's prisons aren't exactly filled with gay people, like they are with black people in the States

Bottle_of_Smoke

steelcityblues wrote: »

Bit of a silly comparison. This country's prisons aren't exactly filled with gay people, like they are with black people in the States

Lol, take it you've never seen what goes on in prison

Jokes aside not quite the point I'm trying to make. If black couples weren't allowed to marry, adopt or could get fired for ethos reasons there'd justifiably be outrage/riots. Whilst I admit LGB rights are slightly more complicated, I don't see that as a reason to demote the issue

steelcityblues

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Lol, take it you've never seen what goes on in prison

Jokes aside not quite the point I'm trying to make. If black couples weren't allowed to marry, adopt or could get fired for ethos reasons there'd justifiably be outrage/riots. Whilst I admit LGB rights are slightly more complicated, I don't see that as a reason to demote the issue

BTW, i think mainly none of the above should be interfered with or legislated by government. After nearly 100 years, our lot that we elect hardly know best:rolleyes:

As regards firing, what if maybe a gay person uses his/her sexuality to blame the boss for their sacking, even if evidence to the contrary shows no prejudice? Opens up a few problems

Well, we know WHY most of those chaps do what they do in prison, but lets not go further there:D

Dannyboy83

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its not just gay men. Bodybuilders who are highly likely to get clean needles for steroids are banned.

Slightly O/T, while fear of septicaemia may be a contributing factor, the primary reason is the alteration of the blood profiles; red/white blood cell ratios, altered lipid profiles, HDL/LDL etc.
This applies to burn victims prescribed anabolic steroids in a controlled medical environment, HRT users etc.
Don't know the position with regard to corticosteroids but I imagine it's the same.

Apparently one of the reasons for the reduction in fertility, falling sperm count/motility and increasing abnormalities, increased obesity and gynecomastia etc. is due to pollution of our water supplies.
Women using the contraceptive pill excrete high amount of oestrogen into our water supply, user of antibiotics and various medicines excrete massive amounts of pollutants which are never adequately filtered out.
Not hard to believe when we remember what went on in the West recently with their water supplies.

Combine that with a population which drinks heavily (alcohol can suppress testosterone production) and you end up with a hormonally haywire male population.

Back On topic.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

That argument also applies to many heterosexual couples, so one should either drop it, or follow it through to its logical conclusion, and refuse to allow heterosexual couples who cannot conceive to adopt.

I accept and understand what you're saying, but bear this one in mind....that when it's two heterosexual couples it means there's a "flaw" somewhere, and flaws - such as a dodgy heart or a deformed limb - are, where possible, "fixed" or compensated for.

Homosexuality is not a "flaw" - or at least, any time that it is suggested by some that it is, then it's hotly disputed.

I don't know, so therefore I'll accept the views of those involved rather than those who simply have an opinion, and therefore I'll accept that it's not a "flaw"......therefore the same rules for fixing / compensating cannot be applied.

Dr. Baltar

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I have this debate so many times on the internet, so please allow me to simply post the majority of my arguments as to why I believe same-sex adoption should be legal.

1. A number of surveys have been carried out in numerous countries investigating the effects that same sex parents have on a child and (I recall a Canadian study) most seem to find that the children get on equally as well as children of heterosexual parents.
Can't seem to find that beautiful Canadian study so here's an info page instead: http://www.colage.org/resources/facts.htm


2. "Gays shouldn't have kids because the children will be bullied" - Then by all means let's hide away our Down Syndrome children, our travelling children and our black children because oh my! they might be bullied too! The majority of kids are bullied at some stage anyway.

3. It is better to have gay parents than no parents!
Just watch this video and look what happens to kids in China if they're not adopted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94trCVCrLo If that's not a reason for gays to adopt them, then I don't know what is!


"But the kids will grow up gay"

Can I convince you to be sexually attracted to a guy? No! You're born like that. My parents are straight, that didn't make me grow up to be straight. You're born on one side of the fence or the other (or you might have splinters in your ass like I do from sitting on it) and that's a result of nature, not nurture.

That's some copypasta of my arguments for Gay Adoption.

As for gay marriage, I see of absolutely no reason whatsoever why Civil Marriage isn't in this country, but I do beliee we need to respect the rights of religious orders and we should not force them to allow gay marriage in the churches.

As for the blood donation issue. I do understand the medical concern regarding that issue, but surely if each batch of blood is screened there isn't a problem? If one of your relatives was in a car crash I'm sure you'd be crying out for my blood. I'm crying out to give you that blood (at a time of shortage) and because of my sexuality it won't be accepted.

oppenheimer1

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

That's some copypasta of my arguments for Gay Adoption.

As for gay marriage, I see of absolutely no reason whatsoever why Civil Marriage isn't in this country, but I do beliee we need to respect the rights of religious orders and we should not force them to allow gay marriage in the churches.

As for the blood donation issue. I do understand the medical concern regarding that issue, but surely if each batch of blood is screened there isn't a problem? If one of your relatives was in a car crash I'm sure you'd be crying out for my blood. I'm crying out to give you that blood (at a time of shortage) and because of my sexuality it won't be accepted.

There is no discrimination for blood donation based on sexuality.

Dr. Baltar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There is no discrimination for blood donation based on sexuality.

It is discriminatory against all MSMs.

steelcityblues

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

It is discriminatory against all MSMs.

In other words: 'ciosets':cool:

steelcityblues

Sorry, meant 'closets'. I'm getting tired!

Dr. Baltar

steelcityblues wrote: »

In other words: 'ciosets':cool:

I'm not familiar with the term 'ciosets' (unless it's a typo of closets).
I've googled to no avail. Could you enlighten me?

EDIT: - As a bisexual male. I have had sexual experiences with straight males who were meerly 'experimenting'. One does not need to be gay or even bisexual to have sex with someone of the same gender.

Liam Byrne

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

One does not need to be gay or even bisexual to have sex with someone of the same gender.

One only needs to experiment if one is not sure.

steelcityblues

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the term 'ciosets' (unless it's a typo of closets).
I've googled to no avail. Could you enlighten me?

EDIT: - As a bisexual male. I have had sexual experiences with straight males who were meerly 'experimenting'. One does not need to be gay or even bisexual to have sex with someone of the same gender.

What colour is the sun out there?

Dr. Baltar

steelcityblues wrote: »

What colour is the sun out there?

Dunno too much ash...

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I accept and understand what you're saying, but bear this one in mind....that when it's two heterosexual couples it means there's a "flaw" somewhere, and flaws - such as a dodgy heart or a deformed limb - are, where possible, "fixed" or compensated for.

Homosexuality is not a "flaw" - or at least, any time that it is suggested by some that it is, then it's hotly disputed.

I don't know, so therefore I'll accept the views of those involved rather than those who simply have an opinion, and therefore I'll accept that it's not a "flaw"......therefore the same rules for fixing / compensating cannot be applied.

That does seem a little confused to me - heterosexual couples who cannot conceive are flawed, but that's OK because it can be fixed, whereas homosexuality isn't a flaw, and therefore cannot be fixed, and therefore isn't OK...?

Actually, the reasons a couple can't conceive aren't usually gross flaws such as dodgy heart or deformed limb, but rather various physiological or genetic incompatibilities - which, being genetic, would in any case be entirely irrelevant to the adopted child!

I genuinely mean no offence when I say that I suspect your opposition is based on prejudice - that is, that you don't approve of the idea, but can't really say why, because it's not really a conscious position. Certainly the reasoning you've offered isn't really holding water...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Slightly O/T, while fear of septicaemia may be a contributing factor, the primary reason is the alteration of the blood profiles; red/white blood cell ratios, altered lipid profiles, HDL/LDL etc.
This applies to burn victims prescribed anabolic steroids in a controlled medical environment, HRT users etc.
Don't know the position with regard to corticosteroids but I imagine it's the same.

Apparently one of the reasons for the reduction in fertility, falling sperm count/motility and increasing abnormalities, increased obesity and gynecomastia etc. is due to pollution of our water supplies.
Women using the contraceptive pill excrete high amount of oestrogen into our water supply, user of antibiotics and various medicines excrete massive amounts of pollutants which are never adequately filtered out.
Not hard to believe when we remember what went on in the West recently with their water supplies.

Combine that with a population which drinks heavily (alcohol can suppress testosterone production) and you end up with a hormonally haywire male population.

Back On topic.

Ok didn't know that. Coincidently I gave blood today. The wording seemed to suggest it was to do with the shared needles risk. EG "have you ever used IV non-prescription drugs (including bodybuilding drugs)?"

If it were to do with the drug alone then surely it would only matter if they were used recently.

Anyway I was just using it as an example, plenty of stuff in there gets you banned for life which would only affect a tiny minority of the high risk group profile.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Scofflaw wrote:

I genuinely mean no offence when I say that I suspect your opposition is based on prejudice - that is, that you don't approve of the idea, but can't really say why, because it's not really a conscious position. Certainly the reasoning you've offered isn't really holding water...

Hmm I think this describes me a bit. I know earlier in the thread I said homosexuals should be allowed to adopt as a couple but to be quite honest that is in spite of my gut instinct/immediate reaction of "no, not on"
Possibly think I'm also empathising with the adopted kid getting stick from bullies. But there's plenty of overriding comparison's to other bullying to leave that position obselete.

Eliot Rosewater

Sulmac wrote: »

Although 20% of (diagnosed) HIV cases happen to be such men, I think a blanket [blood donation] ban is just stupid and clearly discriminatory.

No medical test will be completely accurate. There's always a possibility some infected blood will slip through the cracks. If your figures are right, then homosexual men are about four times as likely to be infected than non-homosexual-male donors. To tighten the test's margin of error to compensate for this would require more double checking, which costs money. Also, I'm not sure the IBTS is short on donors. If they aren't, why should they be forced to accept a riskier demographic when there's a safer option?

Other than that, I'm firmly in agreement with you.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

That does seem a little confused to me - heterosexual couples who cannot conceive are flawed, but that's OK because it can be fixed, whereas homosexuality isn't a flaw, and therefore cannot be fixed, and therefore isn't OK...?

Actually, the reasons a couple can't conceive aren't usually gross flaws such as dodgy heart or deformed limb, but rather various physiological or genetic incompatibilities - which, being genetic, would in any case be entirely irrelevant to the adopted child!

OK - the second point is that the flaw DOESN'T affect the child, so it's OK to intervene .....obviously, someone who couldn't conceive because of serious psychological issues as in being a "psycho" wouldn't be suitable for "intervention" or "interfering" - i.e. they wouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Lets take the comparison to another, so that hopefully my point can be accepted without being viewed as a prejudice or some other chicken-and-egg reversal.....

Some people can't breathe naturally, so we "fix" this through inhalers or operations or whatever so that they can live in the outside world.

No-one can breathe underwater, so we don't artificially facilitate underwater living, or "fix" this by tampering with genetics, etc.

That's what I mean about fixing a "natural" flaw versus not "fixing" an "un-natural" one.

Of course, that's a black-and-white issue, because it's "no-one" in the second scenario, and therefore "no-one" feels discriminated against.

Could we possibly "engineer" it so that men could "carry" a baby ? Possibly, nowadays, or in the future. But that would be "un-natural", wouldn't it ?

Note : I'm not equating the two - just trying to explain my thinking

So that's where I'm coming from......hope I've explained it properly.

Yes, I'm aware that you can also say that it's "un-natural" for humans to fly, etc, so I accept that "what nature intended" is a grey area.

And personally, I think the "flaw" is that - while accepting someone's orientation, that nature made them feel maternal/paternal.

Do I know for definite ? No. I don't really even understand that aspect of sexuality, or the aforementioned "experimentation", because I've never experienced it.

But - like I said - nature works to creating a natural pairing in almost every species in order to create a family, and that can't really be dismissed.

Eliot Rosewater

So, if I understand you correctly Liam Byrne, you are against gay couples adopting because it's not what "nature intended".

There's a number of flaws in this reasoning. Firstly, who ever said nature was a good guide to follow? There's plenty of examples of male animals who pull a runner as soon as the female is impregnated. Should we follow this? You know, it is nature, after all.

More importantly, nature isn't interested in "families". It's interested in keeping the species going for as long as possible through reproduction. A 16 year old girl who gives birth to a child outside of a stable relationship is, by all means, adhering to nature's standards. Is this desirable as a result?

The underage girl provides one good reason why homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. Who do you think is going to be a better parent and create a better family: the aforementioned 16-year old who's had a baby by accident, or two people in a (presumably stable) relationship who are going out of their way to navigate the adoption service so as to care for a baby?

Laminations

I think what Liam is trying to say is that it is not 'natural' for a homosexual couple to have a baby because no homosexual couple can ever conceive. But it is 'natural' for a heterosexual couple to have a baby so this should be assisted where there are individual problems. His argument is technically true but i think its irrelevant. It comes down to whats best for the child and if a couple, be they homo or heterosexual, would make good parents and provide a good home then they should be allowed adopt. And no one need worry about children being brainwashed into a sexual orientation, it simply doesn't work that way

LookingFor

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Possibly think I'm also empathising with the adopted kid getting stick from bullies. But there's plenty of overriding comparison's to other bullying to leave that position obselete.

Reminds me of Miss Panti: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWpHzoXg9HE

Anyway, I saw a heart-wrenching story from California that underlines the absolute and urgent need for marriage/partnership rights for gay couples.

http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/suit-charges-elderly-gay-couple-was-forced-apart/

Mr. Greene, a 78-year old gay man from Sebastopol, has filed a lawsuit against Sonoma County after claiming a spate of indignities he suffered at the hands of officials during a bizarre estate battle that took place when his partner, who was 88, fell and became hospitalized in 2008.

Mr. Greene’s troubles began when Harold Scull, Mr. Greene’s partner for more than 20 years, fell down the steps of their home in April 2008. At the time, the complaint said, Mr. Scull was showing signs of mental impairment.

County officials successfully petitioned the court to gain some powers of conservatorship. Then they “sold, kept, converted to their own use, and otherwise disposed of” almost $500,000 worth of belongings from the home shared by the two men — including furniture, art objects, memorabilia from the years Mr. Scull spent working in Hollywood, as well as a truck and two cats, the lawsuit alleges.

Mr. Greene said that he and Mr. Scull had previously specified each other as executors in case either became incapacitated, but the county ignored the legal documents and the history of their relationship, and at one point referred to Mr. Greene as Mr. Scull’s “roommate.”

Citing the state of his mental health, county officials then moved Mr. Greene against his will into a nursing home and sold the rest of his belongings, the suit charged. He was not allowed to visit Mr. Scull, who died several months later, in August 2008.

At one point, as county officials moved through the couple’s home, the complaint alleged, they commented on the “quality” and “desirability” of the furnishings. They also mocked Mr. Greene, he said, calling him a “crazy old man,” said he had “dementia” and was a lost cause, laughed at him, and told him to “shut up and go to your room.”

On another instance, Mr. Greene claimed that employees acting as the county’s Deputy Public Guardians rolled their eyes and said in his presence, “you know how those gay boys are” and later expressed “displeasure at dealing with expressions of grief by a gay man who had lost his long-time partner.”

This angers me - and should anger any human with any capacity for empathy. It highlights a cruel cruel streak that can emerge in people if they're given half a chance.

This is what happens today in America when you are elderly, gay, and cannot marry/have your partnership legally recognized. It's a mix of the kind of treatment old people can get, compounded by their sexuality.

It is why - among other things - I get so pissed off watching documentaries like 'Suddenly, Last Winter' (about attempts to legalise civil partnership in Italy) and see people say that gay people don't need any law or rights.

Regarding an earlier post saying gay people should focus on cultural discrimination rather than legal: they're linked, and it's precisely why many gay people won't be happy until they have civil marriage vs 'separate but equal' civil partnership.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - the second point is that the flaw DOESN'T affect the child, so it's OK to intervene .....obviously, someone who couldn't conceive because of serious psychological issues as in being a "psycho" wouldn't be suitable for "intervention" or "interfering" - i.e. they wouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Lets take the comparison to another, so that hopefully my point can be accepted without being viewed as a prejudice or some other chicken-and-egg reversal.....

As I said, I really don't mean any offence by the term 'prejudice', I just literally mean that you probably instinctively object to the idea at a gut level rather than having come to opposition as a conclusion.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Some people can't breathe naturally, so we "fix" this through inhalers or operations or whatever so that they can live in the outside world.

No-one can breathe underwater, so we don't artificially facilitate underwater living, or "fix" this by tampering with genetics, etc.

That's what I mean about fixing a "natural" flaw versus not "fixing" an "un-natural" one.

Of course, that's a black-and-white issue, because it's "no-one" in the second scenario, and therefore "no-one" feels discriminated against.

Could we possibly "engineer" it so that men could "carry" a baby ? Possibly, nowadays, or in the future. But that would be "un-natural", wouldn't it ?

Note : I'm not equating the two - just trying to explain my thinking

So that's where I'm coming from......hope I've explained it properly.

As well as such a concept can be explained, I think!

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware that you can also say that it's "un-natural" for humans to fly, etc, so I accept that "what nature intended" is a grey area.

As I said earlier, it's "unnatural" for men to be able to feed a baby milk.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And personally, I think the "flaw" is that - while accepting someone's orientation, that nature made them feel maternal/paternal.

Do I know for definite ? No. I don't really even understand that aspect of sexuality, or the aforementioned "experimentation", because I've never experienced it.

But - like I said - nature works to creating a natural pairing in almost every species in order to create a family, and that can't really be dismissed.

I think it can be dismissed out of hand, myself, but since you don't, let's choose the closest possible parallel in nature - if you were shown examples of male 'couples' of animals adopting young, would you then consider it natural? I ask because that, by your lights, clearly makes it "natural", and it's very well documented:

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oppenheimer1

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So, if I understand you correctly Liam Byrne, you are against gay couples adopting because it's not what "nature intended".

There's a number of flaws in this reasoning. Firstly, who ever said nature was a good guide to follow? There's plenty of examples of male animals who pull a runner as soon as the female is impregnated. Should we follow this? You know, it is nature, after all.

More importantly, nature isn't interested in "families". It's interested in keeping the species going for as long as possible through reproduction. A 16 year old girl who gives birth to a child outside of a stable relationship is, by all means, adhering to nature's standards. Is this desirable as a result?

The underage girl provides one good reason why homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. Who do you think is going to be a better parent and create a better family: the aforementioned 16-year old who's had a baby by accident, or two people in a (presumably stable) relationship who are going out of their way to navigate the adoption service so as to care for a baby?

Your argument would be valid if it was the case that there were a shortage of hetrosexual couples willing to adopt. The fact is quite the opposite is true. Traditionally the best way to raise children is in a nucleated family where both the adult male and female bring something different to the relationship. The stable nucleated family has been the cornerstone of society for a long time, and we see the consequences all too often when this breaks down.

Say there is complete equality for homosexual couples in adoption. We have one baby and both a hetrosexual and homosexual couple of equally good character willing to adopt. Non discrimination would mean that 50-50 chance of being placed with either. Is that right? Is that the best outcome for the child?

Adoption is far too important an issue to deal with in the context of placating a vocal minority about their "rights". No one has the right to adopt a child. What should be done is always in the best interest of the child, and quite frankly if a child was able to make a decision regarding ther upbringing, how many times do you think they would pick the homosexual couple over the straight couple all other things being equal?

oppenheimer1

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I said, I really don't mean any offence by the term 'prejudice', I just literally mean that you probably instinctively object to the idea at a gut level rather than having come to opposition as a conclusion.



As well as such a concept can be explained, I think!



As I said earlier, it's "unnatural" for men to be able to feed a baby milk.



I think it can be dismissed out of hand, myself, but since you don't, let's choose the closest possible parallel in nature - if you were shown examples of male 'couples' of animals adopting young, would you then consider it natural? I ask because that, by your lights, clearly makes it "natural", and it's very well documented:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Humans aren't swans. Existance of homosexuality in the animal kingdom is far rarer than it is Humans, very much the exception to the rule.

Scofflaw

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Humans aren't swans. Existance of homosexuality in the animal kingdom is far rarer than it is Humans, very much the exception to the rule.

No, that's not the case. Homosexuality is common in "the animal kingdom". Even the case I cited, where a quarter of black swan couples are same-sex, beats humanity hands-down - nothing like that proportion of human couples are same-sex. The point that humans aren't swans is irrelevant - humans are animals, and we have same-sex couples just as other animals do. If it's natural for them, it's natural for us.

One is entitled to prejudices (that is, pre-judgements) in respect to one's opinions, but they don't override facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

Pride Fighter

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's not the case. Homosexuality is common in "the animal kingdom". Even the case I cited, where a quarter of black swan couples are same-sex, beats humanity hands-down - nothing like that proportion of human couples are same-sex. The point that humans aren't swans is irrelevant - humans are animals, and we have same-sex couples just as other animals do. If it's natural for them, it's natural for us.

One is entitled to prejudices (that is, pre-judgements) in respect to one's opinions, but they don't override facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

I fully agree with your line of reasoning and would like to say you are spot on in this thread.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Adoption is far too important an issue to deal with in the context of placating a vocal minority about their "rights". No one has the right to adopt a child.

No one said so.

What some in the gay community have petitioned for is the right to be considered as adoptive parents, as candidates to adopt.

Moreover, the typical 'use case' for this kind of law among gay people is wrt a couple where one parent is a biological parent of the child and the other is not. Currently the other partner, if in a homosexual couple, has no rights or responsibilities over that child. There are children in Ireland today being raised by gay couples where the child has a legal relationship with only one parent. It's not just, or primarily, about childless gay couples wanting to adopt a third party child. This should be fixed, should it not? The currently proposed civil partnership bill, AFAIK, does not make any provision for these circumstances.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What should be done is always in the best interest of the child, and quite frankly if a child was able to make a decision regarding ther upbringing

Best interests of the child is not necessarily represented by what the child would choose. If the child had a choice in the first place it would likely choose not to have been put up for adoption at all.

The question is fundamentally if gay people should be in a position to adopt a child of their partner and/or if the pool of potential adoptive parents is improved or disimproved by admitting gay couples (and thus does it improve or disimprove the chances of a child being placed in a good home). That's what it boils down to.

oppenheimer1

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's not the case. Homosexuality is common in "the animal kingdom". Even the case I cited, where a quarter of black swan couples are same-sex, beats humanity hands-down - nothing like that proportion of human couples are same-sex. The point that humans aren't swans is irrelevant - humans are animals, and we have same-sex couples just as other animals do. If it's natural for them, it's natural for us.

One is entitled to prejudices (that is, pre-judgements) in respect to one's opinions, but they don't override facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

The article you link would suggest that animals exhibit bisexual tendencies frather than being true homosexuals when viewing from a human context. I do accept that there are cases of long lasting homosexual pairings in the animal kingdom.

I do think pointing to animal behaviour is pointless because I'm not saying gay couples are wrong and shouldn't be allowed. In fact I'm quite for civil partnership if it can be shown that a substantial proportion of these relationships can last, but if they are almost all ending in separation and dissolution then it becomes a farce and an administrative nightmare.
How many gay marriages last more than 15 years? (genuine question)

My argument is against Homosexual adoption, on the grounds that a child gets the best upbringing from a straight couple, with all other things being equal. It is well documented that a child requires both maternal and paternal influences for increasing the outcome that the child will grow up to be a balanced and adjusted individual. When putting a child in someones care we should always be operating in the best interests of the child, not pandering to the "rights" of self interested group.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it can be dismissed out of hand, myself, but since you don't, let's choose the closest possible parallel in nature - if you were shown examples of male 'couples' of animals adopting young, would you then consider it natural?

What's "natural" and what "happens in nature" aren't precisely interchangeable, because we have - supposedly - a civilised society.

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.

Do you think that a homosexual couple stealing a child and hunting away the mother would be viewed as OK in society ? Do you think that I do ?

Likewise, an animal will - in its "nature" - kill another animal for food / resources; something else that most of normal society would be horrified by. Just because some criminals think it's "their right", and it also happens in nature, should we accept it in society ?

So therefore there's more to it than what you implied. And what I mean by "nature / natural" is related to what is physically possible under normal conditions in nature - "natural" - rather than using animal behaviour as a norm.

Yes, we've "evolved" (although that's debatable in itself if you watch Jeremy Kyle or the behaviour of the ruling classes)......does that negate the basis ? I don't know.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A 16 year old girl who gives birth to a child outside of a stable relationship is, by all means, adhering to nature's standards. Is this desirable as a result?

Firstly, the 16 year old girl wasn't strictly "single" at the moment of conception, so no, I don't accept that that's "nature's standards". If she had an immaculate conception, then I might agree with you.

Secondly, this is a slightly different scenario, because "adoption" is a man-made concept to make sure abandoned children, etc, are "looked after".

Nature doesn't have that concept, and while there are occasional documented cases of a foal, etc, being fostered, it definitely doesn't have a concept of what's in the "best interests" of the child, which is a completely human ideal.

So if we compare like with like, that 16 year old girl - or, indeed, any "straight" single person - shouldn't be allowed to adopt either, IMHO, because (a) they're not in the "ideal" relationship scenario - the one that is required (all things being equal) to create a child and (b) they physically can't!

Therefore it's not discrimination - there are many people other than gay people who simply don't fit the required criteria.

Anyway, I doubt that I'm going to convince anyone, or they me, so we'll leave this aspect at that and let the thread continue on the more general subject....

My main point was that having a thread that says "full rights" is very subjective.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's "natural" and what "happens in nature" aren't precisely interchangeable, because we have - supposedly - a civilised society.



Do you think that a homosexual couple stealing a child and hunting away the mother would be viewed as OK in society ? Do you think that I do ?

Likewise, an animal will - in its "nature" - kill another animal for food / resources; something else that most of normal society would be horrified by. Just because some criminals think it's "their right", and it also happens in nature, should we accept it in society ?

So therefore there's more to it than what you implied. And what I mean by "nature / natural" is related to what is physically possible under normal conditions in nature - "natural" - rather than using animal behaviour as a norm.

Yes, we've "evolved" (although that's debatable in itself if you watch Jeremy Kyle or the behaviour of the ruling classes)......does that negate the basis ? I don't know.



Firstly, the 16 year old girl wasn't strictly "single" at the moment of conception, so no, I don't accept that that's "nature's standards". If she had an immaculate conception, then I might agree with you.

Secondly, this is a slightly different scenario, because "adoption" is a man-made concept to make sure abandoned children, etc, are "looked after".

Nature doesn't have that concept, and while there are occasional documented cases of a foal, etc, being fostered, it definitely doesn't have a concept of what's in the "best interests" of the child, which is a completely human ideal.

So if we compare like with like, that 16 year old girl - or, indeed, any "straight" single person - shouldn't be allowed to adopt either, IMHO, because (a) they're not in the "ideal" relationship scenario - the one that is required (all things being equal) to create a child and (b) they physically can't!

Therefore it's not discrimination - there are many people other than gay people who simply don't fit the required criteria.

Anyway, I doubt that I'm going to convince anyone, or they me, so we'll leave this aspect at that and let the thread continue on the more general subject....

My main point was that having a thread that says "full rights" is very subjective.

I never thought I'd ever agree with a post of yours Liam

Scofflaw

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The article you link would suggest that animals exhibit bisexual tendencies frather than being true homosexuals when viewing from a human context. I do accept that there are cases of long lasting homosexual pairings in the animal kingdom.

I do think pointing to animal behaviour is pointless because I'm not saying gay couples are wrong and shouldn't be allowed. In fact I'm quite for civil partnership if it can be shown that a substantial proportion of these relationships can last, but if they are almost all ending in separation and dissolution then it becomes a farce and an administrative nightmare.
How many gay marriages last more than 15 years? (genuine question)

My argument is against Homosexual adoption, on the grounds that a child gets the best upbringing from a straight couple, with all other things being equal. It is well documented that a child requires both maternal and paternal influences for increasing the outcome that the child will grow up to be a balanced and adjusted individual. When putting a child in someones care we should always be operating in the best interests of the child, not pandering to the "rights" of self interested group.

I think it has already been said that in fact there isn't any evidence to support that view - so I'd be interested to see what documentation is referred to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I do think pointing to animal behaviour is pointless because I'm not saying gay couples are wrong and shouldn't be allowed. In fact I'm quite for civil partnership if it can be shown that a substantial proportion of these relationships can last, but if they are almost all ending in separation and dissolution then it becomes a farce and an administrative nightmare.
How many gay marriages last more than 15 years? (genuine question)

Wowzers. We have to meet a longevity test?

After what straight people did to the notion of 'permanent' marriage? And after straight people introduced divorce?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

My argument is against Homosexual adoption, on the grounds that a child gets the best upbringing from a straight couple, with all other things being equal. It is well documented that a child requires both maternal and paternal influences for increasing the outcome that the child will grow up to be a balanced and adjusted individual.

You are making these statements but not backing them up. They seem to be based purely on your own judgment or opinion (which I would guess is based on little to no exposure to real gay couples with children).

A Canadian government review of over 100 studies in the area, commissioned at the height of its own civil partnership debate, concluded that children of lesbian couples were as well off as children of a male/female coupling. Some studies showed they were actually better adjusted, fewer showed they were less well adjusted, and the vast majority showed no difference.

You also continue to ignore the scenarios that are chiefly driving calls for gay couples to be allowed to adopt - that were a child is already being raised by a gay couple, but because of the current legal situation only a relationship with one of the parents is legally recognised. You ask what the child would choose - do you think such children would not choose to have their other parent be legally their parent too?