Civil Partnership bill, can you explain something to me?

smash

steve06 wrote:

Surely the ideal environment to raise kids in, is a loving one....

prinz wrote:

Not necessarily.

Then what in your eyes is the ideal environment to raise a child?

steve06 wrote:

Why would a gay marriage mean this wouldn't happen?

prinz wrote:

Never said it automatically meant anything of the sort.

Well you're implying they shouldn't be allowed get married and raise children as a family unit.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

Yeah, cos we all know monogamy is only possible for heterosexuals and none of them every cheat, get divorced or give a less that gleaming home-life for kids - or are you about to give us some study from guatamala in 2003 showing that more or only gay people cheat when married?

Seriously, there is nothing about sharing the same genitalia with a partner that makes you more likely to have multiple partners while married, cheat on your spouse or be a bad parent with an unhappy child. Now, can we lay those myths to bed, too?

Piste

prinz wrote: »

Since the 'ideal' environment to raise kids is a heterosexual coupling then it is implied.

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

Can you cite any of the studies carried out which show this? Even links to absracts would be fine.

Prof.Badass

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

I would assume that homosexual couples are less monogamous than heterosexual ones precisely because of the lack of children in gay relationships.

Stark

The article about Norwegian and Swedish partnerships seems to make that point. In any case, the whole point of a partnership agreement is to properly handle the cases where mutually dependent relationships break down.

Brian O Dalaigh

This is ridiculous. LGBT couples should have the exact same rights as straight couples, including marriage and the ability to adopt children. If we ban them from getting married it is not going to mean there will be less gays around - rather it will mean we will be permanently discriminating against a section of our society (something we seem to love to do in Ireland) who will always be there. To argue about a traditional family is also a stupid argument. What is a traditional family? In Ireland, prior to the arrival of Christianity, a woman could marry more than one man, at one time - that's right we had polygamy here. And we had polygamous relationships here for much longer than we have had monogamous relationships. A typical family in Ireland for most of Ireland's existence would have been made up of a central mother-figure generally married to young male and usually an uncle of his. She would have had many children as well. Also in the family there would have been the adopted (taken in from other tribes). Far different from what we have today. Yet that family structure was around far longer than what we currently have. And it obviously worked because their descendants are here today in us. It's time we changed what we perceive as family. Certainly not this stupid conservative idea we have in our constitution. Our current family ideal promotes the following: family 1 is better than family 2 and family 2 is better than family 3, where family 1 is a loving husband, wife and child, family 2 is an abusive husband, wife and child and family 3 is a loving husband, husband and child.

Brian O Dalaigh

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

What studies? Tell us. Show us. Who conducted them? What was the control? Were there similar studies done with the same procedures on heterosexual couples? What was the the duration of study? What about social background? Geography? Economic situation? Culture? Did religion have a part to play?

MJRS

I always post this in threads like this, but ****it.


1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

laurashambles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPVISQR9fY

Brian O Dalaigh

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

That is definitely true. As far as I know men NEVER cheat on their wives, and women NEVER cheat on their husbands. That's why our society is perfect these days. We have no cheating, no neglected children, no war, no famine, no pestilence, no poverty, no drug abuse, no alcohol abuse, no-one smokes, and certainly no-one expresses opinions differing from established Western norms.

Annasopra

Min wrote: »

Change the 'institution of marriage'?

But the institution of marriage has changed - 12 year old girls could marry in 1937 - should we not still allow this because the institution shouldnt be changed?

K-9

Johnnymcg wrote: »

But the institution of marriage has changed - 12 year old girls could marry in 1937 - should we not still allow this because the institution shouldnt be changed?

/Thread.

Links234

well said johnny!

squod

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stm

K-9 wrote: »

/Thread.

K-9

squod wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stm

Homosexuality was punishable by death in the 1800's, they then reduced it to imprisonment, then flogging (!). They then made it legal. Now they are giving them rights.

I'm getting out before they make it compulsory.

Annasopra

K-9 wrote: »

/Thread.

whats your point?

MJRS

Johnnymcg wrote: »

whats your point?

I think he was agreeing with you boss!