Full rights for the LGBT community.

aloyisious

And now for something completely different.... http://eile.ie/2015/03/24/church-group-against-conscience-clause-for-businesses-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage

conorh91

The authors of that article might go to the trouble of conducting some basic research, next time.

Diarmuid Martin is not calling for a conscience clause.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/diarmuid-martin-not-calling-for-conscience-clause-in-vote-1.2150102

You might also note his comments at the end of that article.

The archbishop also called for the debate “to be carried on respectfully without the use of intemperate language”.

He said he felt “obliged to say that I have received in recent times correspondence from people who support a ‘No’ vote in the referendum in which the language used is not just intemperate but obnoxious, insulting and unChristian in regard to gay and lesbian people.

“If people use such language to support a position they feel is Christian, then all I can say is that they have forgotten something essential about the Christian message.”

There is an ongoing attempt to splash black and white paint over a debate usually festooned in rainbows. It is dishonest and slightly offensive when it misleads the public.

PopePalpatine

Jim Walsh has thrown his toys out of the FF pram:
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/581127148590751744

aloyisious

I see the Seand has passed the bill and rejected RM's amendments. I thought JW was going to propose some as well.

PopePalpatine

You know, if I faced bigotry every day I'd find it hard to not be depressed.

bb1234567

xrp wrote: »

<snip>

No off spring..? In America I think I heard lesbian women have almost as many children as the average straight woman

xrp

bb1234567 wrote: »

No off spring..? In America I think I heard lesbian women have almost as many children as the average straight woman

You do realise that lesbian couples/triples/whatever-youre-having-yourself require fathers to reproduce?

Will these poor children know who their father is?

And people give out about the nuns "withholding files". Already, there must be 10,000s of sperm donor kids with the associated data locked away on hard disks (for The State to access, not the child or his/her "parents").

Participating in a hybrid family experiment and allowing homosexuals "have" kids (as authorised by The State) in an effort to legitimise and give credence to their sexual habits, makes mother and baby homes look like a cake walk.

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions. Smoking (the use of an orifice contrary to its design) comes with a government health warning.

jimdublin15

xrp wrote: »

<snip>

To be honest I can only imagine/speculate that the cause of the higher depression rates suffered by some members of the LGBT community may not due to homosexuality itself but perhaps more related to the group having to face undue judgment, stigma, bulling and harassment from other members of society. Or at least the feeling of such. As for the lifestyle, again not sure if homosexuality causes a lifestyle, but I can imagine that if I was part of a group that felt they had to "hide" from the rest of society my lifestyle may become somewhat underground from the feeling of necessity not due to choice or sexuality.

No the promoting side I agree with you. Promoting homosexuality is not the best, (Not sure how or who the Irish times has been promoting though) It's equally as bad as promoting any other sexuality such as heterosexuality in my opinion to be honest. Whatever people do or who they do it with is their own business, no real right or wrong as long as it's consenting adults right?

I must however say if I would think the news or media would promote the one sexuality they should promote the others equally just to be fair, so perhaps best just not to promote it at all. (Again just my opinion)
Offspring, I know quite a few gay people with kids conceived in the more "traditional" manner, but I was unaware it's a burden or a problem if people do not have offspring. I know of plenty hetero couples that decide not to have kids.

xrp wrote: »

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I fully agree with you on feeling sorry for the kids, however I am sorry that we have not managed to create a better society for them that they can grow in, develop and be free to be whatever they are without facing simple equality problems. I think society and we all make up society should be slightly embarrassed that were not more tolerant towards each other and still are struggling to have equality for all members of that society.

xrp wrote: »

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions.

Sure…. What a great idea, wonderful, - So first we identify them and then charge them more for health insurance, great plan.
However but it’s a very slippery slope we then face together, sure easy enough start with Gay’s and Smokers. But then who’s next?

• The Obese ? Followed by the slightly fat. Perhaps a sliding scale would apply.
• The Diabetics ? They get lifelong treatments from the HSE.
• The Elderly ? They are old partly due to a lifestyle choice, or for this group we just have a cutoff point to reduce cost ? Stop all medical treatment at 65/70 and let nature take its course ?
• Wheelchair bond ?
• Binge drinkers ? (Anyone who has ever drunk more than 6 units ever in a single sitting, I mean that's 90% of us :-))

See I’m not sure if making Gay’s identify themselves and then charging them increasing medical bills is a good idea, this will further push that part of society into hiding (darkness) and this will in turn cause even higher health issues (Depression and STI’s) and so the costs to society. No, I think the first step is we need to be more tolerant of people .

henryporter

xrp wrote: »

You do realise that lesbian couples/triples/whatever-youre-having-yourself require fathers to reproduce?

Will these poor children know who their father is?

And people give out about the nuns "withholding files". Already, there must be 10,000s of sperm donor kids with the associated data locked away on hard disks (for The State to access, not the child or his/her "parents").

Participating in a hybrid family experiment and allowing homosexuals "have" kids (as authorised by The State) in an effort to legitimise and give credence to their sexual habits, makes mother and baby homes look like a cake walk.

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions. Smoking (the use of an orifice contrary to its design) comes with a government health warning.

And maybe some other disincentive for ridiculous ill informed judgemental bigotry?

PopePalpatine

henryporter wrote: »

And maybe some other disincentive for ridiculous ill informed judgemental bigotry?

Oh god no, shure that's [shriek]ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY!11!![/shriek]

aloyisious

xrp wrote: »

You do realise that lesbian couples/triples/whatever-youre-having-yourself require fathers to reproduce?

Will these poor children know who their father is?

And people give out about the nuns "withholding files". Already, there must be 10,000s of sperm donor kids with the associated data locked away on hard disks (for The State to access, not the child or his/her "parents").

Participating in a hybrid family experiment and allowing homosexuals "have" kids (as authorised by The State) in an effort to legitimise and give credence to their sexual habits, makes mother and baby homes look like a cake walk.

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions. Smoking (the use of an orifice contrary to its design) comes with a government health warning.

When will you be posting about the male homosexual couples and their children missing out on mum, or is it just lesbians you have an interest in? You do indicate a strong, though denied, interest in what lesbians get up to in bed.

I'm glad you're up to date on the science of human reproduction that you know it takes three to tango there when it comes to pregnancy and homosexual couples, unless you think there was some other way pregnancy and birth could occur.

Your mention of bad outcomes to bad decisions and mother and baby homes show's just how caring and clued-in you are about the children born to non-straight couples now, let alone the thoughtful care provided by the state and other caring groups/bodies to mums & kids in that era.

Re the mother and baby homes and the sperm donor kids/ associated data on hard disks, there's a difference: involuntary "consent" by pressure V voluntary signed consent with law (not something of the "hidden" practice of the former).

bb1234567

xrp wrote: »

You do realise that lesbian couples/triples/whatever-youre-having-yourself require fathers to reproduce?

Will these poor children know who their father is?

And people give out about the nuns "withholding files". Already, there must be 10,000s of sperm donor kids with the associated data locked away on hard disks (for The State to access, not the child or his/her "parents").

Participating in a hybrid family experiment and allowing homosexuals "have" kids (as authorised by The State) in an effort to legitimise and give credence to their sexual habits, makes mother and baby homes look like a cake walk.

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions. Smoking (the use of an orifice contrary to its design) comes with a government health warning.

Yeah, they'll just have two loving mothers instead. What could be worse.

PopePalpatine

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yeah, they'll just have two loving mothers instead. What could be worse.

It's better than being stuck in an orphanage run by fascistic nuns.

conorh91

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's better than being stuck in an orphanage run by fascistic nuns.

The Orders themselves recognized that even their well-run institutions were inadequate for the raising of children, which is why they always maintained touch a tough advocacy in favour of the family, and continue to do so today.

PopePalpatine

Oh boy, the Congregation for the Defence of the Faith's Reputation are here.

Tell me, does this seem like "well-run" to you?

conorh91

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Tell me, does this seem like "well-run" to you?

Did I say every institution was well run?

No. I'd swear some people just have stock responses to these things.

PopePalpatine

By any chance did you mean "such a tough advocacy" rather than "touch a tough advocacy"?

You'd think that selling babies for €70-85k a pop in today's money, along with the funding they got from the state, they might be able to bump up the quality of the care rather than sending it to the Holy See's immense coffers.

xrp

The mother and baby homes in India (for the lovely gay couples back home) charge about €100k a pop (when you consider the fee, flights, legalities such as passports, etc.). Industrial scale reproduction and the exploitation of poor vulnerable women is only going to get worse.

aloyisious

conorh91 wrote: »

The Orders themselves recognized that even their well-run institutions were inadequate for the raising of children, which is why they always maintained touch a tough advocacy in favour of the family, and continue to do so today.

That "tough advocacy" sound's like an excuse to explain away the selling of orphaned and abandoned children to foster parents at home and abroad for cash "donations" on an "any family will do" basis. I can only hope the tough advocacy has changed in style from that used by the orders favouring mother and child abuse.

PopePalpatine

xrp wrote: »

The mother and baby homes in India (for the lovely gay couples back home) charge about €100k a pop (when you consider the fee, flights, legalities such as passports, etc.). Industrial scale reproduction and the exploitation of poor vulnerable women is only going to get worse.

I'm finding it quite hard to believe you have any genuine concern for any women exploited like this, if you're willing to engage in whataboutery to deflect from what the RCC has inflicted upon this country.

conorh91

aloyisious wrote: »

That "tough advocacy" sound's like an excuse to explain away the selling of orphaned and abandoned children to foster parents at home and abroad for cash "donations" on an "any family will do" basis.

Only if you completely disregard the meaning of the word advocacy.

Their advocacy in support of the family refers to a policy approach that cherishes and supports biological families staying together, where possible.

Religious orders have always emphasised the need for family autonomy; nobody wants to take babies away from the guardianship of their biological parents unless absolutely necessary. Well, almost nobody...

aloyisious

xrp wrote: »

The mother and baby homes in India (for the lovely gay couples back home) charge about €100k a pop (when you consider the fee, flights, legalities such as passports, etc.). Industrial scale reproduction and the exploitation of poor vulnerable women is only going to get worse.

I agree that that concept you outline above of "helping the mothers" is wrong. Do you believe that the homes are being hetero-phobic when it comes to what you describe above, that they don't also provide the service you describe to heterosexual couples? Have you done anything here in Ireland with the Indian Ambassador to oppose the human production factories you mention above?

I don't know of any gay couples here who could afford €100k for children, or even if there actually are any. I imagine that gay couples here seeking to adapt children will and do use the legal Irish adoption system to give children homes.

I suggest you are referring to high profile personalities within society listed in newspapers, and in a selective way by not including the heterosexual couples listed as well. If you are choosing to do so, then there is a term to describe that: discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

Annasopra

conorh91 wrote: »

Only if you completely disregard the meaning of the word advocacy.

Their advocacy in support of the family refers to a policy approach that cherishes and supports biological families staying together, where possible.

Religious orders have always emphasised the need for family autonomy; nobody wants to take babies away from the guardianship of their biological parents unless absolutely necessary. Well, almost nobody...

All the forced adoptions in this country and you are claiming the nuns wanted to keep these families together?

Brian Shanahan

conorh91 wrote: »

There is an ongoing attempt to splash black and white paint over a debate usually festooned in rainbows. It is dishonest and slightly offensive when it misleads the public.

Have a chat with Lolek's Onanists then. Those of us in favour of equality for all aren't trying to frame the debate as one of "good vs. evil".

xrp wrote: »

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

What are the odds that if I asked you to back up this blatant lie that you'd point to the lying, discredited, distorted and plain immoral Regnerus Study?

Brian Shanahan

xrp wrote: »

The mother and baby homes in India (for the lovely gay couples back home) charge about €100k a pop (when you consider the fee, flights, legalities such as passports, etc.). Industrial scale reproduction and the exploitation of poor vulnerable women is only going to get worse.

Tell that to David Quin, chief Onanist at Lolek Ltd. your fellow anti-gay campaigners. He adopted two foreign babies from poor countries for big money, and adopted them young because they were, in his own words "better to mold the way he wanted", i.e. they were the designer babies you just argued so much against.

Sheesh the hypocrisy of homophobes is terrifying isn't it?

conorh91

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

All the forced adoptions in this country and you are claiming the nuns wanted to keep these families together?

From those nuns' misguided point of view, there was no intact family. By the standards of the time, and through the prism of their own foolish idealism, I'd assume they felt that the children would be better-off with families who could give them every support, than with a stigmatised, impoverished upbringing during an era where women were not capable of supporting a family alone.

I believe the religious orders generally believed they were doing the right thing, even though they were 100% in the wrong by the standards of today. That wrongdoing has been detrimental to the mothers of these adopted children. There is no 'winner' in this. All I'm asking for is a bit of balance.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Those of us in favour of equality for all aren't trying to frame the debate as one of "good vs. evil".

Then why is the Catholic church always portrayed as the arch-nemesis of gay people? The Archbishop of Dublin has intervened to speak-out against homophobia in the debate, and yet his words are misreported as offering support for a conscience clause--something he *expressly* refused to support.

There is an element on both sides trying to fight this debate in monochrome.

There is deliberately misleading information being advanced on both sides.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

From those nuns' misguided point of view, there was no intact family. By the standards of the time, and through the prism of their own foolish idealism, I'd assume they felt that the children would be better-off with families who could give them every support, than with a stigmatised, impoverished upbringing during an era where women were not capable of supporting a family alone.

I believe the religious orders generally believed they were doing the right thing, even though they were 100% in the wrong by the standards of today. That wrongdoing has been detrimental to the mothers of these adopted children. There is no 'winner' in this. All I'm asking for is a bit of balance.


Then why is the Catholic church always portrayed as the arch-nemesis of gay people? The Archbishop of Dublin has intervened to speak-out against homophobia in the debate, and yet his words are misreported as offering support for a conscience clause--something he *expressly* refused to support.

There is an element on both sides trying to fight this debate in monochrome.

There is deliberately misleading information being advanced on both sides.

And did the religious orders believe they were doing right when they refused to give babies to Protestant Irish homes ? Better let them rot in the cruellest circumstances ,risk malnutrition or abuse rather the prods get their hands on them.

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

And did the religious orders believe they were doing right when they refused to give babies to Protestant Irish homes ?

I'm not aware of this actually being an issue, but of course agencies and biological parents are entitled to proceed in a way that reflects their own ethos. This would apply to Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or humanist adoption agencies and parents equally, even in the present day.

If any hypothetical Jewish agency were forced to adopt its children into Catholic homes there would (rightly) be uproar.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not aware of this actually being an issue, but of course agencies and biological parents are entitled to proceed in a way that reflects their own ethos. This would apply to Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or humanist adoption agencies and parents equally, even in the present day.

If any hypothetical Jewish agency were forced to adopt its children into Catholic homes there would (rightly) be uproar.

Ah yeah ,the spread the blame excuse , better let the kids fall in to the hands of child abusers than prods .

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

Ah yeah ,the spread the blame excuse , better let the kids fall in to the hands of child abusers than prods .

wtf Why are you calling them 'prods'? All agencies, and all parents regardless of creed, have the right to prefer an ethos which accords with their own ethos, where possible.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

wtf Why are you calling them 'prods'? All agencies, and all parents regardless of creed, have the right to prefer an ethos which accords with their own ethos, where possible.

And screw the rights of the children .

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

And screw the rights of the children .

No matter how reasoned I try to be, you are just going to ignore the point, and insert melodramatic quips, aren't you?

No, not without reference to the child's rights. Nobody is here to defend forced adoptions or child abuse. Enough with the theatrics.

This is exactly the sort of black-and-white debate I was referencing earlier. Most people are not interested in building a consensus. They'd much rather this divisive, historically-blind, absolutist approach to history.

johnnyskeleton

xrp- this is not a forum where you can make any random assertion you like. Please read the charter and as this is a sensitive topic here is a good guideline:

Reasons why [insert proposal re: LGBT rights] is/is not a good thing for society is a valid argument for this thread.

Reasons why LGBT people are [insert invective] is not a valid argument for this thread.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh god no, shure that's [shriek]ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY!11!![/shriek]

This is not the cafe, so please tone down the rhetoric

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

No matter how reasoned I try to be, you are just going to ignore the point, and insert melodramatic quips, aren't you?

No, not without reference to the child's rights. Nobody is here to defend forced adoptions or child abuse. Enough with the theatrics.

This is exactly the sort of black-and-white debate I was referencing earlier. Most people are not interested in building a consensus. They'd much rather this divisive, historically-blind, absolutist approach to history.

No , some issues are not black and white and you do not build a consensus with them. none of this is theatrics , are you unaware of the complete gulag system that was run in country for over 50 years ?

The same mindset that could not see that a child in a protestant home was better off than a child in a Magdelene home is now being deployed to argue against gay adoption .

Just because you have one bishop sounding reasonable does not change this fundamental fact , If you want consensus try working on the Iona crowd who recently heckled this same cleric for not being more aggressive .

aloyisious

Conorh91: This is from the article link you provided. In it, Archbishop Martin has equated the conscience rights of religious solemnizers and state employees when it comes to the "will I or won't I" question about officiating at a same-sex marriage. My IMO response is below the Archbishop's opinion.

Archibishop Martin responding to a question from Dr John Murray of the Iona Institute on the issue of conscience.

‘Conscientious question’

The archbishop said there was also “inconsistency”, as, “for example, somebody said religious solemnisers won’t be forced to celebrate gay marriages. What does that say? It’s saying . . . there is a conscientious question and we respect the conscience of religious solemnisers, mainly priests.

“What about a Christian in civil society, a lay Christian who has the same difficulties? Does he have freedom of conscience? Or is his freedom of conscience different to mine as a priest? I don’t believe that.

“Now people will say ok, if you are paid by the State you will do what the State tells you. That isn’t, in the long term, what even democracy is about. I do believe we have to stress that.

“[On] the other side, we have to respect the freedom of expression of others who may disagree with us, but I think this question of freedom of conscience is being pushed aside in debate and we’re getting very superficial answers about the way it is being addressed in our society and I believe that’s a much more serious problem.”

---

1. It is well known (and hopefully understood) that religious solemnizers will not be required by law to solemnize same sex
marriages as they are state marriages, not religious marriages, should the referendum pass.

2. I believe the Archbishop is being disingenuous when he equates the religious solemnizer exempted by state law in recognition of
his status as a religious personage (delineating the difference between religious and state marriages) and the state employee
required by state law to solemnize at state marriages. He say's it is about freedom of conscience and developing a sensitivity as
to what that mean's.

3. To me there is a clear hint from the Archbishop to state solemnizers of state marriages "you have a freedom of conscience and
it allow's you to say NO when it comes to performing your state job, as you are doing the same job as a religious solemnizer".
Not alone is the hint aimed at Roman Catholic state employees, but by using the term "religious solemnizers" he is including the
followers of other faiths/beliefs in his hint about freedom of conscience.

4. I strongly suspect that the question from Dr Murray to Archbishop Martin was pre-planned, as was the carefully worded reply.

5. One other danger I see in the Archbishop's hint to state employees is that some of them might take it to heart and decide that
"my conscience allow's me to discriminate against the followers of other faiths as they are false" should they follow his hint and
develop their conscience further. However, I think that that point might be better debated on another "religious affairs" thread.

conorh91

aloyisious wrote: »

To me there is a clear hint from the Archbishop

the hint aimed at Roman Catholic state employees

I strongly suspect that the question from Dr Murray to Archbishop Martin was pre-planned, as was the carefully worded reply.

the Archbishop's hint to state employees

I love how you're reading "hints" into everything, whilst glossing over the Archbishop's express words that he is not calling for a conscience clause.

Why is it so important for you to claim that the Archbishop is demanding something he has explicitly rejected?

Your link was wrong. Accept it.

A bald statement denying an appeal for a conscience clause, as well as criticising homophobia, would ordinarily be something you'd expect the Yes side to welcome.

But of course people won't welcome it. Nor will you admit your link made a false claim. There are no points to be scored from doing so.

aloyisious

conorh91 wrote: »

I love how you're reading "hints" into everything, whilst glossing over the Archbishop's express words that he is not calling for a conscience clause.

Why is it so important for you to claim that the Archbishop is demanding something he has explicitly rejected?

Your link was wrong. Accept it.

A bald statement denying an appeal for a conscience clause, as well as criticising homophobia, would ordinarily be something you'd expect the Yes side to welcome.

But of course people won't welcome it. Nor will you admit your link made a false claim. There are no points to be scored from doing so.

Then maybe Dr Murray should not have mentioned the conscience issue at all. It's certainly the elephant in the room now, following on from Dr Murray's question. Not wanting this to end up a "Yes, you did, No, I didn't" slanging match between us here wasting space and time, I did not claim the archbishop DEMANDED anything. I just pointed out the interchange between Dr Murray and him on the conscience issue in the link you provided, including his "develop their conscience" remark. I actually wrote, edited and re-wrote my post to you so we could debate the issue raised by Dr Murray with Archbishop Martin, and how it could be interpreted by the state solemnizers mentioned, instead of having the type of verbal sparring match that happen's here.

conorh91

aloyisious wrote: »

Then maybe Dr Murray should not have mentioned the conscience issue at all. It's certainly the elephant in the room now, following on from Dr Murray's question. Not wanting this to end up a "Yes, you did, No, I didn't" slanging match

You realize this makes zero sense? The Archbishop expressly denied seeking a conscience clause. This is not what he is calling for. Now you're saying you wish he hadn't said that, because it would have been less ambiguous. Maybe to you. I can assure you that most people would deem the words "not calling for a conscience clause" adequately clear.

Your link was wrong. Move on. Everybody else has.

aloyisious

conorh91 wrote: »

You realize this makes zero sense? The Archbishop expressly denied seeking a conscience clause. This is not what he is calling for. Now you're saying you wish he hadn't said that, because it would have been less ambiguous. Maybe to you. I can assure you that most people would deem the words "not calling for a conscience clause" adequately clear.

Your link was wrong. Move on. Everybody else has.

Wrong. Just because you fail to see and accept that in the article there is also a direct connection between his mention of freedom of conscience in reference to state (solemnizers) employees in respect of their duties (when the specific duty is about officiating at same-sex marriage) as against that given to religious solemnizers (which he was apparently worried about, but is definitely NOT at risk) does not mean that the Archbishop failed to get the point about solemnizers and freedom of conscience across to the public. That will not go away, we all know there is more than one way of skinning a cat.

johnnyskeleton

Ok.

Normal service has resumed. New thread in the Cafe for the issues regarding the Church and State etc:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057407059#

Please bear in mind the higher standards of the main charter, and if in doubt post in the Cafe instead.

DavidRamsay99

Straight people have no reason to be opposed to gays or gay marriage or adoption.

The majority of gay people in the world are in the closet and the majority of those people marry members of the opposite sex in order to have families and children so the majority of gay people chose not to live gay lifestyles and chose to live heterosexual lifestyles and the majority of gay people are therefore parents of children already. Most gay people therefore agree that marriage is between a man and woman and marriage is for children.

The majority of gays are married and have decided to give up the possibility of a gay lifestyle in order to have families and children so when other gays live openly gay lifestyles it threatens them because if they are tempted to join them they risk losing their friends, families and children. The majority of homophobes are people with gay or bisexual orientation who are fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children. This is why homophobia is ingrained in religion and why many gays take refuge in religion to reinforce their family values.

If gays get full rights in Ireland to marry and adopt children I do not believe it will effect homophobic attitudes as the majority of gays will still chose to have their own children rather than adopt and the best way to have your own children is to marry and have children with the opposite sex.

Brian Shanahan

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

Straight people have no reason to be opposed to gays or gay marriage or adoption.

The majority of gay people in the world are in the closet and the majority of those people marry members of the opposite sex in order to have families and children so the majority of gay people chose not to live gay lifestyles and chose to live heterosexual lifestyles and the majority of gay people are therefore parents of children already. Most gay people therefore agree that marriage is between a man and woman and marriage is for children.

The majority of gays are married and have decided to give up the possibility of a gay lifestyle in order to have families and children so when other gays live openly gay lifestyles it threatens them because if they are tempted to join them they risk losing their friends, families and children. The majority of homophobes are people with gay or bisexual orientation who are fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children. This is why homophobia is ingrained in religion and why many gays take refuge in religion to reinforce their family values.

If gays get full rights in Ireland to marry and adopt children I do not believe it will effect homophobic attitudes as the majority of gays will still chose to have their own children rather than adopt and the best way to have your own children is to marry and have children with the opposite sex.

So let me get this straight; your argument is that because homophobia has forced gay people into denying their sexuality and pretending to be straight (because that is why gay people stay in the closet, homophobic pressure) there therefore is no homophobia and thus gay marriage shouldn't be legalised?

This "thinking" is genius commensurate with the level of Star Trek's Pakleds.

jimdublin15

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

a gay lifestyle

I like your post and agree in part with it. Gay marriage is no threat to Heterosexual marriage.

People want to live there life's. i.e Go to work, Pay bills and in the evening go home and spend time with they're loved ones or make each other miserable.
Giving that same right/recognition to a group who want to be able to do the same is no threat.

Just one thing, you say many gays would marry and give up a gay lifestyle - So what is a gay lifestyle ? And I'm serious I don't know what the difference is (beyond the bedroom stuff) between Gay and Heterosexual lifestyle.

Jim.

DavidRamsay99

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So let me get this straight; your argument is that because homophobia has forced gay people into denying their sexuality and pretending to be straight (because that is why gay people stay in the closet, homophobic pressure) there therefore is no homophobia and thus gay marriage shouldn't be legalised?

This "thinking" is genius commensurate with the level of Star Trek's Pakleds.

I think I explained what I said clearly enough.

I am saying that the reason most gay people choose to remain in the closet and marry and have kids is because it is the least troublesome way to have a family and kids.

Homophobia is primarily inflicted on gays by other gays because other gays living openly gay lifestyles threatens gays who have chosen to get married and have kids. They fear temptation and they fear the break up of their families. Since they are gay they also fear their kids will inherit the same traits as them.

Most people want a legacy, especially if they are wealthy and have a business and want to pass it on when they die. So they have kids and mold those kids in their image and when they shuffle off this mortal coil they leave their fortune and business in "safe" hands.

Most parents who learn their son or daughter is gay are devastated because it means no grandchildren. When many parents raise a daughter or son they look forward to their wedding and when they can bounce their grandkids on their knee. There is a visceral horror until they finally accept their child is gay or else they disown them.

For closet gays with families and kids the temptation of the gay lifestyle fills them with horror because as they see it threatens to unravel family and society.

It is no accident that the most vocal homophobes are regularly exposed as closet homosexuals.

It is deeply naive to think homophobia is going to die out.

DavidRamsay99

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I like your post and agree in part with it. Gay marriage is no threat to Heterosexual marriage.

People want to live there life's. i.e Go to work, Pay bills and in the evening go home and spend time with they're loved ones or make each other miserable.
Giving that same right/recognition to a group who want to be able to do the same is no threat.

Just one thing, you say many gays would marry and give up a gay lifestyle - So what is a gay lifestyle ? And I'm serious I don't know what the difference is (beyond the bedroom stuff) between Gay and Heterosexual lifestyle.

Jim.

What I mean by a gay lifestyle is living openly gay and having gay relationships.

jimdublin15

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

What I mean by a gay lifestyle is living openly gay and having gay relationships.

So in essence no real difference in lifestyle then.

DavidRamsay99

jimdublin15 wrote: »

So in essence no real difference in lifestyle then.

A gay man or woman who pretends to heterosexual and has a sexual relationship with the opposite sex and has children is obviously not living a gay lifestyle.
A gay man or woman who is openly homosexual and has sexual relationships with the same sex is clearly living a gay lifestyle.
The point I was making was that the majority of gay people remain in the closet in order to get married so they can have a family and kids.
They give up the opportunity of a homosexual relationship in return for having kids that are their genetic children.

jimdublin15

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

Homophobia is primarily inflicted on gays by other gays because other gays living openly gay lifestyles threatens gays who have chosen to get married and have kids.
They fear temptation and they fear the break up of their families. Since they are gay they also fear their kids will inherit the same traits as them.

Any studies to back that one up ? Particulary the last part regading the fear kids will inherit the same traits links and stats please ?.

Not that I see what it has to do with equal rights BTW.
It sounds a bit Biphobic to me, you would not haappen to be gay and jelouse now would you ?

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

The majority of homophobes are people with gay or bisexual orientation who are fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children.

Any links and/or details please on the number of bisexuals fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children. Or are you speaking from experience ?
Don't see what it has to do with equal rights BTW.

jimdublin15

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

A gay man or woman who pretends to heterosexual and has a sexual relationship with the opposite sex and has children is obviously not living a gay lifestyle.
A gay man or woman who is openly homosexual and has sexual relationships with the same sex is clearly living a gay lifestyle.
The point I was making was that the majority of gay people remain in the closet in order to get married so they can have a family and kids.
They give up the opportunity of a homosexual relationship in return for having kids that are their genetic children.

I see...

Not that it matters then. BTW I'm all for equal rights, anyone should be able to marry whomever they want. No threat to anyone else as far as I can tell.

Go to work, Pay bills, Buy a house make each other happy or miserable, have kids or don't, get a divorce, or stay together. Be you two men, two women, or a man and a woman. I don't see a problem.

DavidRamsay99

jimdublin15 wrote: »

Any studies to back that one up ? Particulary the last part regading the fear kids will inherit the same traits links and stats please ?.

Not that I see what it has to do with equal rights BTW.
It sounds a bit Biphobic to me, you would not haappen to be gay and jelouse now would you ?

I am straight and I am not homophobic or biphobic and I fully support LGBT rights.
I am simply explaining the phenomena of homophobia which is driven by closet homosexuality.
I don't know why you are reacting in a hostile manner.

Any links and/or details please on the number of bisexuals fighting an internal struggle against for the sake of their families and children. Or are you speaking from experience ?

I have encountered many people who I suspected were gay or bisexual and turned out to be so and I have met people who are married and want to remain married because they like it and want children and feel threatened by the vocal and unapologetic-ally open LGBT community.

Don't see what it has to do with equal rights BTW.

My point is that is naive to believe homophobia will die out just because LGBT people achieve full equality.

It is bizarre that my post which was supportive of gays and dissected homophobia would be misconstrued as homophobic.