Full rights for the LGBT community.

Liam Byrne

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I'm bisexual, go figure.

OK - consider me caught out on that one post.

But in fairness, I did say "non-gay relationship", and whatever relationship was in play at a particular time would have to be either gay or non-gay.

Beyond that, I can say no more, because it's something I will never understand - and I mean nothing personal or derogatory by that, because there are other sexual preferences or maybe more correctly, practices, that I "understand" even less.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Conversely, why is the suggested replacement "ideal" better than the existing one, and why is it lumped in with "rights" rather than wants ?

Any time change is requested, it's those proposing it that need to convince society that the new way is better.

I'm not convinced.

Simple as that.

No, that won't do. You have people who want to adopt, and are not allowed - why do you get to deny them that right if you can't come up with a convincing reason for your position?

"It's always been done that way" isn't any reason at all, as we could quickly demonstrate by applying it to the way Fianna Fáil runs the country!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that won't do. You have people who want to adopt, and are not allowed - why do you get to deny them that right if you can't come up with a convincing reason for your position?

Quit personalising it. I don't get to deny anyone.

I've already said that I'd accept if I couldn't adopt, as a single person, because I don't think it's right, and the fact that I apparently can is news to me.

Scofflaw wrote: »

"It's always been done that way" isn't any reason at all, as we could quickly demonstrate by applying it to the way Fianna Fáil runs the country!

Who said it was a reason ?

It quite obviously isn't a case of "we've always done it that way" issue, since I'd prefer if single people weren't allowed to adopt, which they are.

And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt re the comment even tentatively comparing me to FF, even though it should be a red rag to a bull.....

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Strawmanning. This act is wrong whether or not its a lesbian. So quit pretending that I said anything along the lines of the question.

What? There's no strawman in what I said! You said:

"People who have children have responsibilities, and whether they are straight or gay they should, where possible, stay in the relationship in which they had the child."

So I said 1) there isn't always a relationship and 2) asked then if a lesbian got pregnant with the sperm of a man should thus form a relationship with that man and forget her 'real' partner. If not, what are you suggesting?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh - we're talking adult children now ? Since when ?

Not exclusively, but I've referenced children who've reached maturity going back a number of posts now.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In which case there should be no children.

However there are and I'm asking what you say to those children.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Again, complete misrepresentation. The OTHER parent ALSO knows them and has raised them from birth.

I do not agree that ANYONE should inseminate themselves in the manner you suggest, whether single or gay.....it's wrong.



Incorrect.

SCENARIO 1:



SCENARIO 2:



So in one there was a relationship and the other there wasn't ?

I think there's a lot of crossed wires here.

My scenario involves a gay couple (a lesbian couple for the sake of saving typing) in a relationship where one of that couple conceives a child with the help of a sympathetic third party, where the child is subsequently raised by the gay couple as their own, and where there is no relationship between the child and 'the sympathetic third party'. One scenario where there is a relationship between two gay people but no relationship with the third party provider of sperm.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Which key scenario ? An existing parent, or a lesbian in a relationship that made herself pregnant via no sex or sex with a third party because it's her "right" ?

The above scenario.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It is by no means "the key", because adoption "rights" also include (for want of a better phrase) "third-party adoption".....

I think it is the most pressing motivation.

As I said earlier, though, yes, it does come down to two questions:

1) the status of children already being raised by gay couples wrt both parents

2) whether the pool of potential adoptive parents is enhanced or diminished by the addition of gay couples.

My posts most recently have focussed on 1).

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've already acknowledged that we evaluate the "was straight now am gay" scenarios that resulted in children (even though I can't understand this concept at all) as best possible

The above scenario is not a 'was straight now am gay' scenario. Again, a lesbian does not need to be straight to concieve a child - for example. Why you persist with this and suggest that a lesbian concieving a child undermines theories about the origin of sexuality is beyond me. Do I need to detail how it is possible for a lesbian to concieve a child without being straight? Or for a gay man to impregnate a surrogate without being straight? For either to do so without even having sex?

Yes yes, 'it's not right' etc. That's not my point, my point is that it happens, and there are kids and families out there formed thusly, and I'm asking you - again - what you say to those people wrt their rights and responsibilities among each other.

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

Yes yes, 'it's not right' etc. That's not my point, my point is that it happens, and there are kids and families out there formed thusly, and I'm asking you - again - what you say to those people wrt their rights and responsibilities among each other.

So you accept that it's not right ?

That the people involved were selfish and put their own wants first, creating a child in objectionable, selfish scenarios ?

Yeah, those people would make great parents alright......

I have already said that this is not a LGBT or whatever issue.....if a straight woman did the same it's WRONG.

That is my answer.

It is not a "rights" issue, nor a "gay vs straight" issue, and is therefore off-topic.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Quit personalising it. I don't get to deny anyone.

I'm not personalising it - I'm assuming that if the issue came to a vote, you would vote against allowing adoption by same-sex couples, and that in the absence of a vote, your opinion would be taken into account by our political representatives in any vote on the issue.

You would, therefore, in the starkest sense, be voting to deny people that right, or your representatives would be voting to do so in order to represent your wishes.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've already said that I'd accept if I couldn't adopt, as a single person, because I don't think it's right, and the fact that I apparently can is news to me.

Yes, the law gives you a freedom you wouldn't avail of, but that's not at issue here.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Who said it was a reason ?

It quite obviously isn't a case of "we've always done it that way" issue, since I'd prefer if single people weren't allowed to adopt, which they are.

And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt re the comment even tentatively comparing me to FF, even though it should be a red rag to a bull.....

You've offered "it's always been done that way" as a reason, by stating that the burden of proof is on those who want the law changed rather than on those who support the status quo. I don't see it that way - the status quo cannot be given the benefit of the doubt merely because it is the status quo. Therefore both sides of the debate need to argue their case without standing on the status quo as you've just done.

I'm not trying to bait you with the reference to Fianna Fáil - I'm only emphasising the fact that the status quo is no defence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you accept that it's not right ?

No I don't, I was simply trying to pre-empt a one-line response from you that didn't actually answer my question.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That the people involved were selfish and put their own wants first, creating a child in objectionable, selfish scenarios ?

I don't see how it's any more selfish than any other circumstances in which a child is conceived. Nor how they're any more objectionable.

Consider the case of the Prendergast family. How on earth would you argue to the face of Conor or Daragh Prenderghast that their family was objectionable and selfish? Or that their parents were objectionable and selfish for conceiving them?

Do you know any of these families?

Is this, by the way, the answer to my question? This is what you'd say to them?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yeah, those people would make great parents alright......

They have and do.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I have already said that this is not a LGBT or whatever issue.....if a straight woman did the same it's WRONG.

That is my answer.

It is not a "rights" issue, nor a "gay vs straight" issue, and is therefore off-topic.

No it is. Because in this scenario if they were a straight couple and they got married, the non-biological parent would automatically assume rights and responsibilities wrt the children of the other partner.

In the case of a lesbian or gay couple, the current partnership bill makes no such accommodation. The non biological parent is a stranger to those children in the eyes of the law whether they partner up or not.

So it is very much about the provisions being made for LGB couples and whether they go far enough.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

You've offered "it's always been done that way" as a reason,

I offered it as a reason why the burden of proof is on those proposing the change.

I did not offer it as a reason that the status quo should remain.

There's a massive difference.

As for why I'd argue on keeping it, it is because I believe that there's a reason why nature needs 2 to create a child.....I might not know the reason, but it's there, and swans robbing children is not a convincing argument to convince me otherwise.

It might not be tangible, but I believe a child should ideally have two parents of opposite sex, and again ideally those should be the two who created them.

Grandparents are a different relationship.......again, many grandparents do help, or do even raise children if a parent dies......but again that is NOT the ideal to which you would deliberately introduce a child.

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

No it is. Because in this scenario if they were a straight couple and [if] they got married, the non-biological parent would automatically assume rights and responsibilities wrt the children of the other partner.

I'm not completely sure of that "automatically" phrasing, since the other biological parent has rights.

I would certainly doubt if they "automatically" adopted.

And what if they didn't get married ?

Dr. Baltar

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for why I'd argue on keeping it, it is because I believe that there's a reason why nature needs 2 to create a child.....I might not know the reason, but it's there, and swans robbing children is not a convincing argument to convince me otherwise.

It might not be tangible, but I believe a child should ideally have two parents of opposite sex, and again ideally those should be the two who created them.

Grandparents are a different relationship.......again, many grandparents do help, or do even raise children if a parent dies......but again that is NOT the ideal to which you would deliberately introduce a child.

See, the thing is, this isn't an issue of whether homosexuals can have children but whether they should be entitled to adopt.
Your arguments focus on the children, so let me ask you this; consider a Chinese baby living in an orphanage. Which life is potentially better for the child.

a) to be adopted by a same-sex Irish couple, or
b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94trCVCrLo

I know I posted it earlier in the thread, but I seriously do not know how anyone can argue that such a life is better than being adopted by a same sex couple.

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And if they didn't ?

Of course there wouldn't be any transfer of rights/responsibilities (at least as far as I know).

These couples want to marry and want to share those rights and responsibilities however, so I do not see the relevance of 'if they didn't'. For them the current proposed partnership bill isn't enough because it does not recognise the reality of their families and the reality of kids already being raised by gay couples.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I offered it as a reason why the burden of proof is on those proposing the change.

I did not offer it as a reason that the status quo should remain.

There's a massive difference.

There's absolutely no difference at all! If I say the burden of proof is on those who wish the change the status quo, that is exactly the same thing as saying that the status quo can be assumed to be right without other defence than that it is the status quo.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for why I'd argue on keeping it, it is because I believe that there's a reason why nature needs 2 to create a child.....I might not know the reason, but it's there, and swans robbing children is not a convincing argument to convince me otherwise.

It might not be tangible, but I believe a child should ideally have two parents of opposite sex, and again ideally those should be the two who created them.

Grandparents are a different relationship.......again, many grandparents do help, or do even raise children if a parent dies......but again that is NOT the ideal to which you would deliberately introduce a child.

There is a reason why it takes two sexes to conceive a child, but it is a piece of evolutionary mechanics that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the raising of the child. In the vast majority of species, what parental care there is is provided by one parent only - nearly always the mother - despite the fact that in those species it also takes two to conceive.

Really, Liam, these are non-arguments. Why not just say "yes, it's a prejudice of mine" and be done with tying yourself in knots? As I said, I wouldn't deny anyone the right to have - and to retain - prejudices, but trying to justify them with mumbo-jumbo and weak sophistry is just daft. I really do mean that!

cordially even so,
Scofflaw

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not completely sure of that "automatically" phrasing, since the other biological parent has rights.

I would certainly doubt if they "automatically" adopted.

Sorry, no, they don't, but there is provision for a 'step parent adoption' to be made. There is no such provision for gay couples under the current partnership bill.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Really, Liam, these are non-arguments. Why not just say "yes, it's a prejudice of mine" and be done with tying yourself in knots?

Because "prejudice" is a biased term.

It's an opinion based on a number of non-tangible factors, I've admitted that.

But it's not a prejudice.

I mean, why is it OK for you to dismissively say ......

Scofflaw wrote: »

it is a piece of evolutionary mechanics

....... phrasing that as if it's not relevant ?

That's the same "evolutionary mechanics" that - as I said earlier - prevent us from living underwater, and no-one is claiming to be prejudiced by saying that it's probably not a good idea as a result.

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

Sorry, no, they don't

So why did you say earlier that they did ?

LookingFor wrote: »

Because in this scenario if they were a straight couple and they got married, the non-biological parent would automatically assume rights and responsibilities wrt the children of the other partner.

If I hadn't challenged it, would you have corrected yourself ?

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So why did you say earlier that they did ?

Because I was mistaken.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If I hadn't challenged it, would you have corrected yourself ?

Unlikely no, but that's the great thing about debate and being intellectually honest and open to correction. It's great to have someone to pick you up on points, and to then go and do your own research and correct yourself. Even better when you can come back and admit it.

But is this relevant to our discussion..? What I 'got wrong' is immaterial to my point. That is, if this couple were heterosexual they would have a mechanism by which the step-parent could adopt the children of the biological parent, whereas gay couples remain excluded from this mechanism, thus it is an issue of 'rights', and the right to that mechanism.

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

But is this relevant to our discussion..?

Well, if people are looking for their "rights" in terms of what others have, it kindof helps if they know what rights others have to begin with.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Because "prejudice" is a biased term.

It's an opinion based on a number of non-tangible factors, I've admitted that.

But it's not a prejudice.

Because it is a prejudice - that is, your judgment of the matter has occurred prior to any argument about it, so you have pre-judged the argument. I feel the same way about a couple of things - gambling is a good example - I don't have a logical, thought-out and defensible position on them, but I have strong feelings on them. If you prefer to call it a gut feeling, call it that, but a prejudice is what it really is. I call mine prejudices, so I'm not applying some kind of double standard.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I mean, why is it OK for you to dismissively say ......



....... phrasing that as if it's not relevant ?

That's the same "evolutionary mechanics" that - as I said earlier - prevent us from living underwater, and no-one is claiming to be prejudiced by saying that it's probably not a good idea as a result.

Frankly, I get to say it because it's factually and scientifically the case. Conception through sex is a matter of evolutionary history that applies to nearly every form of multicellular life. There are algae with recognisable male and female 'genitalia' which require the input of both male and female members of the species in order to have offspring, but to argue that that has any relevance to quality of their parental care is rank and obvious nonsense.

It is equally rank nonsense for humans, unless you're going to abandon evolution and fall back on Adam and Eve - and that's why a lot of people with the same gut feelings as yourself end up falling back on such religious dogma, because it allows them to justify what can't be justified any other authoritative way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well, if people are looking for their "rights" in terms of what others have, it kindof helps if they know what rights others have to begin with.

Right, but we've now established what those rights are, and the disparity remains (hence the detail of those rights does not really have a material impact on my point about the absence of provision for gay couples with children in the currently proposed bill).

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

It is equally rank nonsense for humans, unless you're going to abandon evolution and fall back on Adam and Eve - and that's why a lot of people with the same gut feelings as yourself end up falling back on such religious dogma, because it allows them to justify what can't be justified any other authoritative way.

I would respectfully request that you remove any suggestion that there is a religious dogma behind my thinking, and quite frankly if you are going to jump to such conclusions on the basis of someone disagreeing with you, it reflects badly.

Prejudices come BEFORE facts, and the facts are that both sexes are required, and that both male and female influences are beneficial.

You believe grandparents or whatever are enough, I don't.

Your belief does not "trump" mine.

Likewise, what is civilised or natural in every other "multicellular life" is not a right or a norm for humans......like I said earlier, many animals kill for food and resources.

But across nature there is negative and positive, male and female, ying and yang.....whatever you want to call it.

This is the considered basis for my gut feeling.

And we're going nowhere - particularly if I'm being equated with religious nuts - so I'm leaving it at that.

We'll just agree to disagree.

LookingFor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Prejudices come BEFORE facts, and the facts are that both sexes are required, and that both male and female influences are beneficial.

You believe grandparents or whatever are enough, I don't.

Your belief does not "trump" mine.

The argument that the absence of one or other in the parental unit is detrimental is not reflected in reality as relayed through the vast majority of studies in this area.

A male/female parental mix is not shown to be any more advantageous to children according to the majority of this research.

You are entitled to your opinion and Scofflaw to his, but his is backed by more than his own feelings on the matter.

oppenheimer1

Ok, this thread seems to have gone around in a bit of a twist regarding the addoption issue. Here are my reasons for opposing it.
1) I believe every child needs both female and male role models in their lives. I think the people best suited to this role are the parents. Same sex couples, buy their nature cannot fulfil this role, and sadly the childs emotional development will be lacking.
2) The society in which we live is flawed and doesn't respect differences. Its sad but its also true. It is likely that a child of a same sex couple will be bullied, or at least the difference would be made known to them. It isn't fair to intentionally place the child in the situation where it might experience emotional distress. Bullying, especially in the formative years of a persons life can have a profound effect on a childs development into adulthood.

It sounds clichéd but above all we have to think of the children. It is their life after all.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Ok, this thread seems to have gone around in a bit of a twist regarding the addoption issue. Here are my reasons for opposing it.
1) I believe every child needs both female and male role models in their lives. I think the people best suited to this role are the parents. Same sex couples, buy their nature cannot fulfil this role, and sadly the childs emotional development will be lacking.
2) The society in which we live is flawed and doesn't respect differences. Its sad but its also true. It is likely that a child of a same sex couple will be bullied, or at least the difference would be made known to them. It isn't fair to intentionally place the child in the situation where it might experience emotional distress. Bullying, especially in the formative years of a persons life can have a profound effect on a childs development into adulthood.

It sounds clichéd but above all we have to think of the children. It is their life after all.

Both your arguments have been defused a number of times through the thread.

For 1) see my last post above.

For 2), it's circular nonsense. "Gay people are discriminated against therefore we should continue to discriminate against them". Please.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

1) I believe every child needs both female and male role models in their lives. I think the people best suited to this role are the parents. Same sex couples, buy their nature cannot fulfil this role, and sadly the childs emotional development will be lacking.

That's what I tried saying, and it got challenged for about 10 pages.....

Let's see how you get on......best of luck!

I wouldn't agree with you on 2, since mixed-race couples (and their children) would have at one time experienced the same objections and ridicule.

But at least they had one of each.

oppenheimer1

LookingFor wrote: »

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?

Are you deliberately twisting my question. 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, a lamentable fact, but it also means that 50% are until death do they part. If it so happens that the vast majority (say 95%+) of same sex unions are ending in dissolution after a few years, then providing this becomes a burden on society, both in terms of denigrating the institution of marriage and a cost to the tax payer in terms of the administrative nightmare it would involve. It would be a farce.

This argument would only be valid if the vast majority of same sex relationships are transient. Admittedly I don't know if this is the case or not. I just thought it might be a point worth raising.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would respectfully request that you remove any suggestion that there is a religious dogma behind my thinking, and quite frankly if you are going to jump to such conclusions on the basis of someone disagreeing with you, it reflects badly.

I almost added that I was in no sense suggesting that you were suffering from religious dogma, but thought better of you.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Prejudices come BEFORE facts, and the facts are that both sexes are required, and that both male and female influences are beneficial.

No, those are what you regard as being "facts", but they're actually just your prejudices.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You believe grandparents or whatever are enough, I don't.

Your belief does not "trump" mine.

Likewise, what is civilised or natural in every other "multicellular life" is not a right or a norm for humans......like I said earlier, many animals kill for food and resources.

Er, yes. And we don't?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But across nature there is negative and positive, male and female, ying and yang.....whatever you want to call it.

This is the considered basis for my gut feeling.

And we're going nowhere - particularly if I'm being equated with religious nuts - so I'm leaving it at that.

We'll just agree to disagree.

I seem to recall suggesting it some way back. However, I'll repeat the point that I didn't say you were a religious nut, or suggest that you would become one. I said that it was not uncommon amongst people who couldn't find another authoritative backing for prejudices. It explains some of the apparently contrary rise in religious fundamentalism as science advances - science has left behind those paradigms (such as 'racial' theories of humanity, or the belief that homosexuality was a form of mental disease) that allowed people to justify their gut feelings by reference to scientific authority, leaving them nowhere but religion to turn to.

Anyway, if you're sufficiently hot under the collar to believe that I've called you a religious dogmatic and a Fianna Fáil supporter, I'm inclined to agree to disagree. After all, I didn't set out to persuade you, or expect to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the_syco

The kid won't catch the gays of their same-sex parents: if they did, there'd be no gay people, as everyone would just like the other sex like their parents. Think about it: it makes sense.

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

To hell with their rights: the kid will go through hell for the first couple of years so that his parents can feel they have more rights?

I'm against same sex couples getting children by any means as it'll be the child who'll get tormented.

What's the difference between a white man and a black woman adopting a baby, and two gays adopting a baby? Modern mentality won't be that harsh on the kid for being from a mixed race family, but modern mentality will be harsh against the kid of the gay couple.

Hoping within the next 20 to 50 years this changes, and will allow kids to grow up without too much harressment for having same-sex parents.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

would only affect a tiny minority of the high risk group profile.

A tiny minority can f**k up a lot of peoples lives.

For whomever think men who had sex with other men should give blood: get the law passed, and if one person gets AIDs from blood, it'll set back gay rights a few decades. And here's the kicker: I said "from blood", and not "from a man who had sex with other men".

oppenheimer1

LookingFor wrote: »

Both your arguments have been defused a number of times through the thread.

For 1) see my last post above.

For 2), it's circular nonsense. "Gay people are discriminated against therefore we should continue to discriminate against them". Please.

Yes it is circular, but should we be using children to break the cycle of prejudice? Its an experiment I would be wary of undertaking.

The fact that prejudice exists against homosexuals exists, It isn't right but its there. You have to wonder if these gay couples are more interested in the advancement of their "cause" rather than the welfare of the child at all...

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's what I tried saying, and it got challenged for about 10 pages.....

Let's see how you get on......best of luck!

I wouldn't agree with you on 2, since mixed-race couples (and their children) would have at one time experienced the same objections and ridicule.

But at least they had one of each.

Thankfully though society has matured to accept mixed race couples. Perhaps in future society will be more willing to accept the idea of same sex couples. Maybe then we could look again at the idea of gay adoption...

That said I probably be still wary of it due to point 1.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Are you deliberately twisting my question. 50% of straight marriages end in divorce, a lamentable fact, but it also means that 50% are until death do they part. If it so happens that the vast majority (say 95%+) of same sex unions are ending in dissolution after a few years, then providing this becomes a burden on society, both in terms of denigrating the institution of marriage and a cost to the tax payer in terms of the administrative nightmare it would involve. It would be a farce.

I'm just puzzled why you suggest it. It seems based on a lot of stereotyping.

We don't have data in most countries over a long enough period to really 'see', but in Denmark, for example, where gay people have been able to marry since 1989 the homosexual divorce rate is 17% compared to a heterosexual divorce rate of 47%.

In Norway/Sweden between 1993 and 1999, 7.8% of the male-male partnerships in that period ended in divorce, 8.0% of male-female partnerships and 11% of female-female.

(Interestingly, perhaps contrary to stereotype, male-male relationships there are also a lot more stable than female-female in both Denmark and Sweden/Norway, with male-male partnerships more stable than both).

Perhaps if your gut feelings are wrong on the stability of homosexual partnerships, you may be willing revise your gut feelings on other matters where the evidence also proves contrary.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yes it is circular, but should we be using children to break the cycle of prejudice? Its an experiment I would be wary of undertaking.

No, we should break the cycle of prejudice by starting at a state level to end prejudice against gay people. This isn't just simply about the children of gay couples either, it's about gay children themselves, and gay people in general, and the **** they have to put up with because of the attitudes of others. If 'sanction' for those attitudes, implicit or otherwise, is given by the state - and it is - then that needs to be stopped.

Your argument, by the way, applies to all sorts of people. Kids of different race still suffer bullying. Ginger kids suffer bullying. We don't place the onus on keeping those kids out of harm on their parents by saying they shouldn't have kids, we stamp out - or try to - the conditions that give rise to that bullying in the first place. So it should be with bullying related to homosexuality.

twinQuins

Children will always find something to make fun of their peers, for.

Should we examine and restrict every group of people on the basis that their children might be bullied?

oppenheimer1

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm just puzzled why you suggest it. It seems based on a lot of stereotyping.

We don't have data in most countries over a long enough period to really 'see', but in Denmark, for example, where gay people have been able to marry since 1989 the homosexual divorce rate is 17% compared to a heterosexual divorce rate of 47%.

In Norway/Sweden between 1993 and 1999, 7.8% of the male-male partnerships in that period ended in divorce, 8.0% of male-female partnerships and 11% of female-female.

(Interestingly, perhaps contrary to stereotype, male-male relationships there are also a lot more stable than female-female in both Denmark and Sweden/Norway, with male-male partnerships more stable than both).

Perhaps if your gut feelings are wrong on the stability of homosexual partnerships, you may be willing revise your gut feelings on other matters where the evidence also proves contrary.

It is a stereotype that homosexual relationships are transient. I was atually wondering if it were actually the case. Incidentally I have no problem with Civil partnership/marriage, as what ever two people get up to is their business. Indeed if you've lived and loved someone your whole life it seems cruel not to grant them inheritance and next of kin rights whatever the gender/orientation.

I do have a problem introducung innocent third parties, such as adopted children, into the equation however. Especially if there is even a slight risk they may be damaged by it.

oppenheimer1

LookingFor wrote: »

No, we should break the cycle of prejudice by starting at a state level to end prejudice against gay people. This isn't just simply about the children of gay couples either, it's about gay children themselves, and gay people in general, and the **** they have to put up with because of the attitudes of others. If 'sanction' for those attitudes, implicit or otherwise, is given by the state - and it is - then that needs to be stopped.

Your argument, by the way, applies to all sorts of people. Kids of different race still suffer bullying. Ginger kids suffer bullying. We don't place the onus on keeping those kids out of harm on their parents by saying they shouldn't have kids, we stamp out - or try to - the conditions that give rise to that bullying in the first place. So it should be with bullying related to homosexuality.

Yes it is attitudes that need to change, however I don't think it is the States business. It has done all it can in terms of granting equality into, lets face it, a generally conservative Irish society. The State, while having a duty to protect minorities, is of the people, by the people, and operates by the wishes of the majority of its citizens.

Yes children are bullied for all sorts of reasons, be it the colour of their hair, wearing glasses, braces etc. Children can be incredibly cruel (as can adults, as many gay people will have experienced) bullying can be incessant and should be stamped out at all levels. Not until there is greater acceptance of gay couples in society should children be even considered of being brought into the equation. Other means should be used to break down the barriers of prejudice. Deliberately placing children in this situation, when no good reason other than to placate a vocal minority, isn't good enough. Not allowing to adopt is not a positive feedback loop of discrimination.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It is a stereotype that homosexual
relationships are transient. I was atually wondering if it were actually the case.

Well we now we know, at least as far as married gay couples go.

In light of this, the arguments elsewhere, particularly in the state's about 'protecting' marriage and so on seem even more ludicrous. If anything marriage seems to have found new life as something that actually has meaning, among gay people.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I do have a problem introducung innocent third parties, such as adopted children, into the equation however. Especially if there is even a slight risk they may be damaged by it.

Again, what of children already being raised by gay couples? There's no 'introduction', they are there, and it is in their welfare and interests that both parents who raised them have rights and responsibilities towards them. Ask them - or at least the ones who've reached maturity and who can speak for themselves as adults - what they want and need and you will see that.

And again, fear-mongering about gay people raising children is not supported by the research that's out there.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yes it is attitudes that need to change, however I don't think it is the States business.

It absolutely has a role.

As long as any state maintains inequality against a group, that inequality is a foundation stone upon which broader 'cultural' prejudice is built. Take it away, and the authority that this prejudice had is weakened. Among minority groups and their struggles for acceptance the state and the law has typically played a key role. If the state gives people any lee-way to be cruel little twats particularly wrt a minority group, unfortunately a significant proportion of people take gleeful advantage. (You can see that in a very large scale historically in Nazi Germany, all the way down on the smaller scale to that story I posted earlier about the treatment an elderly gay couple in the states received by the authorities. Don't tell me 'the state' hasn't a role in influencing society and societal norms for good or ill!).

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It has done all it can in terms of granting equality into, lets face it, a generally conservative Irish society.

I do not think it has.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Not until there is greater acceptance of gay couples in society should children be even considered of being brought into the equation. Other means should be used to break down the barriers of prejudice. Deliberately placing children in this situation, when no good reason other than to placate a vocal minority, isn't good enough. Not allowing to adopt is not a positive feedback loop of discrimination.

Yes it is!

You are sending the message that gay people are not fit to parent!

This enhances prejudice against gay people! How could it do otherwise? If you're not fit to parent - moreover, not fit to be even considered as a potential parent - there's something wrong with you. People ask why you're not. People - in the absence of familiarity with any gay people, let alone gay parents - revert to stereotypes and nasty lies.

You are also ignoring the children ALREADY THERE who are being parented by gay people, and the messages that your stance sends to those kids and their peers about the acceptability or validity of gay parents, of their parents and of their family. You are saying 'YOUR family is not as good as THAT family'.

The state has to help get the ball rolling on acceptance by standing up and saying, 'this is OK' and to not maintain a status quo that puts a question mark over gay people and that consolidates or even promotes attitudes among some people about gay people.

Annasopra

The bullying argument is bull****, - on that basis we should allow people with strange jobs or people in wheelchairs or dwarfs or people who wear glasses or people with funny names adopt because the adopted child will be bullied on the basis of their parents job, inability to walk, height, facial wear or name

Laminations

My god this argument about bullying is a weak one. 'You cant adopt because other people are assholes!'. What about two redheaded parents. They will knowingly be giving birth to a redhead, how dare they! 'Ginger' kids are bullied openly by all levels of society, they are considered fair game even by adults. Should we sterilise redheads so they cant bring kids into the world for the sake of the kids?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Not until there is greater acceptance of gay couples redheads in society should children be even considered of being brought into the equation. Other means should be used to break down the barriers of prejudice.

www.jlowman.com/Gingerkids.htm

Fuhrer

Sulmac wrote: »

Although marriage isn't strictly defined as between a man and a woman in the Constitution, it has been interpreted as such

What is it defined as in the Constitution?

Sulmac

Fuhrer wrote: »

What is it defined as in the Constitution?

The entire article to do with marriage and the family is Article 41:

The Family

Article 41

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that

i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,

ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

As you can see, nowhere does it strictly say that marriage shall only be between a man and a woman.

That said, in the High Court case Zappone and Gilligan v Revenue Commissioners, which involved two lesbians who got married in Canada and wanted their marriage recognised for tax purposes, the judge (Dunne) rejected their claim that they could be recognised as married by the tax authorities. He ruled that the constitutional definition of marriage was restricted to heterosexual couples because that's what the people in 1937 would have intended (this is called a historicist approach). Indeed, the judge said that while the Constitution is capable of "evolving" (i.e. he could interpret it to allow same-sex marriage), he didn't believe there was a "consensus" to change the definition (one of the arguments of the couple). Bear in mind this was back in 2006; nowadays there is clearly much more support for such a move.

The case is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court, and a judgment is expected later this year. The court may cement the verdict given in the High Court, or it may adopt a more modern approach and say same-sex marriage is allowed, or even required (the South African Constitutional Court did this).

Regarding the Constitutional rights of the "family", this has been interpreted as the family based on marriage only. That is not to say that the Oireachtas cannot pass legislation giving non-marital families the same rights (for instance by granting automatic rights to unmarried fathers as has been suggested numerous times), though if we allowed same-sex marriage than such families would be equal to opposite-sex marriages under the Constitution.

Hugo Drax

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.

It's not the State that's stopping you marrying or adopting.

It's the Church and private adoption agencies.

Take it up with them.

I think it's quite obvious that the State if anything is very much pro-Gay and is doing everything it can to encourage and actively support the Gay communities....

OhNoYouDidn't

Hugo Drax wrote: »

It's not the State that's stopping you marrying or adopting.

It's the Church and private adoption agencies.

Take it up with them.

I think it's quite obvious that the State if anything is very much pro-Gay and is doing everything it can to encourage and actively support the Gay communities....

So a gay couple can walk into a regitry office and get married?

Really?

ixoy

Hugo Drax wrote: »

It's not the State that's stopping you marrying or adopting.

It's the Church and private adoption agencies.

Yes it is the state, unless we've somehow moved to a theocracy when I wasn't looking.

I think it's quite obvious that the State if anything is very much pro-Gay and is doing everything it can to encourage and actively support the Gay communities....

I certainly don't think it's obvious given the length of time it took for a civil partnership bill to even appear and the manner in which it's being dealt with.

BlaasForRafa

Laminations wrote: »

Should we sterilise redheads so they cant bring kids into the world for the sake of the kids?

Yes.

anymore

Is the Gay community willing to give equal rights to both biological parents in cases where there is a donor of sperm/ eggs ?
And will the Gay community recognise and respect the rigts of the child to the presence in its life of both biological parents ?
Or does it feel that the ' rights' of a gay couple are greater than the inherent right of a child to the presence of both biological parents - yes I know that this can be asked of donors for hetrosexual couples as well.

LookingFor

anymore wrote: »

Is the Gay community willing to give equal rights to both biological parents in cases where there is a donor of sperm/ eggs ?
And will the Gay community recognise and respect the rigts of the child to the presence in its life of both biological parents ?
Or does it feel that the ' rights' of a gay couple are greater than the inherent right of a child to the presence of both biological parents - yes I know that this can be asked of donors for hetrosexual couples as well.

This isn't a specifically 'gay' problem as you note yourself.

There's already systems in place covering this, and would apply for gay couples as for straight. I've a rough idea how it works for step-parent adoption, but I'm less enlightened wrt anonymous donation and what mechanisms are or aren't in place for children conceived via donation to find their donor parent.

oppenheimer1

LookingFor wrote: »

Well we now we know, at least as far as married gay couples go.

In light of this, the arguments elsewhere, particularly in the state's about 'protecting' marriage and so on seem even more ludicrous. If anything marriage seems to have found new life as something that actually has meaning, among gay people.



Again, what of children already being raised by gay couples? There's no 'introduction', they are there, and it is in their welfare and interests that both parents who raised them have rights and responsibilities towards them. Ask them - or at least the ones who've reached maturity and who can speak for themselves as adults - what they want and need and you will see that.

And again, fear-mongering about gay people raising children is not supported by the research that's out there.



It absolutely has a role.

As long as any state maintains inequality against a group, that inequality is a foundation stone upon which broader 'cultural' prejudice is built. Take it away, and the authority that this prejudice had is weakened. Among minority groups and their struggles for acceptance the state and the law has typically played a key role. If the state gives people any lee-way to be cruel little twats particularly wrt a minority group, unfortunately a significant proportion of people take gleeful advantage. (You can see that in a very large scale historically in Nazi Germany, all the way down on the smaller scale to that story I posted earlier about the treatment an elderly gay couple in the states received by the authorities. Don't tell me 'the state' hasn't a role in influencing society and societal norms for good or ill!).

Introducing the Nazis means you automatically lose the debate. Thanks.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The bullying argument is bull****, - on that basis we should allow people with strange jobs or people in wheelchairs or dwarfs or people who wear glasses or people with funny names adopt because the adopted child will be bullied on the basis of their parents job, inability to walk, height, facial wear or name

Laminations wrote: »

My god this argument about bullying is a weak one. 'You cant adopt because other people are assholes!'. What about two redheaded parents. They will knowingly be giving birth to a redhead, how dare they! 'Ginger' kids are bullied openly by all levels of society, they are considered fair game even by adults. Should we sterilise redheads so they cant bring kids into the world for the sake of the kids?

www.jlowman.com/Gingerkids.htm

The fact that you do not seem to care about the bullying issue, highlights perfectly what this debate is really all about. Adoption should always be in the best interests of the child, yet here we have a group that seem to want to disregard the the effect bullying could have. This because it doesn't fit with their agenda.

There is no shortage of heterosexual couples willing to adopt in Ireland, so its not as if we need Gay couples to take up the slack. The system of adoption has worked wekk so far, it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.

So answer this, who is the adoption of a child ultimately benefit? The gay parents who have advanced their cause, or the emotionally distressed child?

Its all about homosexuals and their "rights" not those of the children.

Sandvich

This thread is disappointing overall.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Introducing the Nazis means you automatically lose the debate. Thanks.

It's a perfectly reasonable example in the context of my point. I'm not comparing it to anything or equating it with anything, I'm pointing it out as a very extreme example of the control the state can have over societal norms and culture.

You say the state has no role to play in influencing cultural acceptance of minority groups, or cannot influence that - but common sense and history show otherwise, both positively and negatively (as in the above example). That was the extent of my use of that example.

Sandvich

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

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.

It's not reasonable if you apply for something that requires a birth cert. That kind of gives the game away, you know?

It's most likely transgendered people are transgendered from birth too, so it's not exactly lying. The best of our scientific knowledge says it's likely transgenderism and sexuality are hardwired.

Sandvich

Introducing the Nazis means you automatically lose the debate. Thanks.

No it doesn't. What the hell. That's horrible logic. Please show me the logical fallacy that governs this?

Protip: Godwin's law is an observation; not something you invoke.

Sandvich

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would respectfully request that you remove any suggestion that there is a religious dogma behind my thinking, and quite frankly if you are going to jump to such conclusions on the basis of someone disagreeing with you, it reflects badly.

Prejudices come BEFORE facts, and the facts are that both sexes are required, and that both male and female influences are beneficial.

You believe grandparents or whatever are enough, I don't.

Your belief does not "trump" mine.

Likewise, what is civilised or natural in every other "multicellular life" is not a right or a norm for humans......like I said earlier, many animals kill for food and resources.

But across nature there is negative and positive, male and female, ying and yang.....whatever you want to call it.

This is the considered basis for my gut feeling.

And we're going nowhere - particularly if I'm being equated with religious nuts - so I'm leaving it at that.

We'll just agree to disagree.

Unfortunately; the Naturalistic fallacy is not a basis for an argument, and the rampant existence of homosexuality in nature also. We do thousands of "unnatural" things every day. How can you even define what is "Unnatural" for humans? Until we reprogram ourselves we're still acting in our nature. And even then you could say it's in our nature to do so, and we redefine ourselves in ways expected of our nature.

It's also annoying because a lot of the people against homosexuality are more generally "unnatural"; with their global warming denial and general BS.

Being homophobic and not religious just means you lose an excuse for being homophobic.