Do you think that gay marriage would get passed in Ireland?

sensibleken

prinz wrote: »

Then you are into grey areas on what is discrimination. Redefine the marriage as viewed by the State to meaning two people of any gender?

No we are not in any grey area, we are in monochrome land here. Denying one service to a couple based on their sexual orientation is descrimination.

Yes, we should redefine marriage as meaning two people of any gender. In the consitution it does not mention gender in its definition of marriage but it was simply upheld as being hetrosexual in Murray v. Ireland (1985).

However there is still massive ambiguity about that ruling and it has not been established that any redefinition is neccesary or an amendment to the Civil Registration Act 2004 would suffice

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

...and being ok with Civil Unions, Civil partnerships, gay marriage etc isn't homophobia. I don't care what sexual orientation the proposed parents, guardians are, I am concerned with the best interest of the child and of society as a whole.

You didn't answer my other question. If I said "I have no issue with christians, or christian marriage as long as any such state recognised institution is formed with parameters which restrict the automatic right to kids. Now obviously this could happen on a private level, surrogacy, extra marital relations etc no different to non-religious couples who have kids from different relationships etc. I just don't think the State should stand over it as an ideal, no more than I think the State should heterosexual polygamous arrangements."


Would you call me an anti-religious bigot or would you think my opinion was valid, progressive, egalitarian and non-discriminatory?

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Not really. The fact that you claim I am "fighting gay marriage" confirms that people are paying no real attention to what I am actually saying.

You might clarify then. Are you, in fact, in favour of gay marriage and/or civil partnerships?

Or are you just upset with the use of the word 'fighting'?

Edit: Oh, I see, you dont have a problem with gay marriage as long as that marriage is defined as not being marriage at all. Hohohoho!! That's called having your cake & eating it; appearing to be tolerant while maintaing the prejudice.

The black kids can sit on the bus; just not up the front, right....?

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

You might clarify then. Are you, in fact, in favour of gay marriage and/or civil partnerships??

His main concern is that gay marriage will lead to joint adoption and parental rights.

He would prefer the status quo right now where a gay couple can adopt but one partner cannot have any rights over the child in the event of his/her partner's death and the child is taken away from a rightful parent and moved into state care. Because clearly that's what's best for the child and society as a whole.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

He would prefer the status quo right now where a gay couple can adopt but one partner cannot have any rights over the child in the event of his/her partner's death and the child is taken away from a rightful parent and moved into state care. Because clearly that's what's best for the child and society as a whole.

Actually in such an event the remaining partner could apply to adopt the child, and the most likely course of action is that this would be granted. Again this same system applies to unmarried heterosexual couples so it is no way discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Would you call me an anti-religious bigot or would you think my opinion was valid, progressive, egalitarian and non-discriminatory?

I'd ask on what basis you hold that opinion, and I'd judge that on its merits. If you are going to argue it's simply because the person is Christian then yes I would. If you have some valid reasoning relating to the children and society as a whole, then perhaps your argument would be valid.

seamus

prinz wrote: »

Actually in such an even the remaining partner could apply to adopt the child, and the most likely course of action is that this would be granted.

Then why make them dance the dance? Why not grant the rights automatically where the couple are married?

Again this same system applies to unmarried heterosexual couples so it is no way discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation.

But you're proposing that it should be discriminatory when marriage is involved. You're effectively saying that a gay married couple are second-class citizens who don't deserve the same rights a heterosexual married couple.

Why not?

prinz

seamus wrote: »

Why not?

...because we're going around in circles now.

MagicMarker

seamus wrote: »

Then why make them dance the dance? Why not grant the rights automatically where the couple are married?
But you're proposing that it should be discriminatory when marriage is involved. You're effectively saying that a gay married couple are second-class citizens who don't deserve the same rights a heterosexual married couple.

Why not?

I don't think he even knows tbh...

''Concern for the children'' seems to me to just be a cloak for his underlying feelings imo...

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I'd ask on what basis you hold that opinion, and I'd judge that on its merits. If you are going to argue it's simply because the person is Christian then yes I would. If you have some valid reasoning relating to the children and society as a whole, then perhaps your argument would be valid.

What is your valid reasoning relating to the children and society as a whole? You've said it would be bad for them but haven't really explained why that is......

ChuckNorrisgod

Its a new age let them do what they want.

What makes them happy and others happy.

But I also think it will never happen in Ireland.

Ireland itself is in the stone age.

Even up north things normal things ever day things that we find a struggle and are pissed of by are so much easier up in the north.

drkpower

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't think he even knows tbh...

''Concern for the children'' seems to me to just be a cloak for his underlying feelings imo...

Precisely.
He doesnt seem to know why its bad for children.
And he cant actually seem to pinpoint any practical changes that he wants in place that will supposedly protect children.

In summary: he doesnt like de gays but cant think of a way of expressing that without seeming intolerant; because he really really does think he is tolerant. But he isnt.

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

''Concern for the children'' seems to me to just be a cloak for his underlying feelings imo...

drkpower wrote: »

Precisely.
He doesnt seem to know why its bad for children.
And he cant actually seem to pinpoint any practical changes that he wants in place that will supposedly protect children.

In summary: he doesnt like de gays but cant think of a way of expressing that without seeming intolerant; because he really really does think he is tolerant. But he isnt.

...and we're back to the homophobia slurs. What a waste of the last two pages or so.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

...and we're back to the homophobia slurs. What a waste of the last two pages or so.

The problem is that you keep saying it's bad for society and children but won't explain why. When you want an entire subset of the population to be legally prevented from adopting children and can't give any reason other than vague references to it being somehow bad for the children the only conclusion anyone can draw is homophobia.

If your reasons are not homophobic, please explain why you think that homosexual adoption should be any more restricted than heterosexual adoption. Why is it bad for children and society?

seamus

prinz wrote: »

...and we're back to the homophobia slurs. What a waste of the last two pages or so.

We could avoid this cycle and probably save a lot of time if you would just complete the below sentence:

"A married gay couple having full rights over an adoptive child is wrong because...."

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

...and we're back to the homophobia slurs. What a waste of the last two pages or so.

Well prove us wrong, give us a good reason against gay marriage? The only thing you've got as far as I'm concerned is some notion that it's cruel to the children. But you have no basis for this line of thinking other than your own ideologies. It's already been pointed out that gay people can adopt, you'd said yourself gay couples can foster, gay people can apply for guardianship...

So please, enlighten us, what exactly is the problem? Until you provide a plausible argument against gay marriage then I'm going to have to revert back to the homophobe option, or at the very least, the ''crazy christian'' option.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

...and we're back to the homophobia slurs. What a waste of the last two pages or so.

Oh stop crying; its your own fault you cant explain your position correctly/at all. But rather than explaining your position, you throw your toys out of the pram.

Sam Vimes

seamus wrote: »

We could avoid this cycle and probably save a lot of time if you would just complete the below sentence:

"A married gay couple having full rights over an adoptive child is wrong because...."

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem is that you keep saying it's bad for society and children but won't explain why. When you want an entire subset of the population to be legally prevented from adopting children and can't give any reason other than vague references to it being somehow bad for the children the only conclusion anyone can draw is homophobia.

If your reasons are not homophobic, please explain why you think that homosexual adoption should be any more restricted than heterosexual adoption. Why is it bad for children and society?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well prove us wrong, give us a good reason against gay marriage? The only thing you've got as far as I'm concerned is some notion that it's cruel to the children. But you have no basis for this line of thinking other than your own ideologies. It's already been pointed out that gay people can adopt, you'd said yourself gay couples can foster, gay people can apply for guardianship...

So please, enlighten us, what exactly is the problem? Until you provide a plausible argument against gay marriage then I'm going to have to revert back to the homophobe option, or at the very least, the ''crazy christian'' option.

drkpower wrote: »

Oh stop crying; its your own fault you cant explain your position correctly/at all. But rather than explaining your position, you throw your toys out of the pram.

All of these posts are asking the same question so I thought I'd consolidate them for ease of response

I think seamus said it best. Please complete the below sentence:

A married gay couple having full rights over an adoptive child is wrong because....

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Oh stop crying; its your own fault you cant explain your position correctly. But rather than explaining your position, you throw your toys out of the pram.

I am doing no such thing. It's not my fault others can't argue against that position correctly.

I have no problem discussing something as I showed the last time I made clear my intention not to contribute further to this thread and returned, when the homophobe comments apparently weren't directed at me in particular, but here we are again. It's a pointless exercise.

GothPunk

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You've said it would be bad for them but haven't really explained why that is......

In fact no one has. Having read through the entire thread, in this post sponsoredwalk linked to several comparative and case studies which report that kids with homosexual parents do just fine, some even going so far as to suggest that children with two mothers might even be better adjusted than kids from traditional families.

I haven't seen one link to any study that claims the opposite from the people who are saying that parents that happen to be homosexual are somehow automatically bad parents. The comments that the children need to be protected from potential bullying in school etc are so self serving they make me feel physically ill.

There is no factual basis to wanting to deny people the right to marry or adopt children just because they happen to be partnered with someone of the same gender. It comes down to your personal discomfort and homophobia as being the only reason that you'd be against something that is really none of your business anyway.

And do you know what? It's okay for someone to feel a bit uncomfortable around homosexuals etc, that's their opinion and so long as they don't go abusing people or discriminating against homosexuals than the State has no issue with them either.

What is certainly not okay is to be so arrogant as to think that your personal opinions and discomfort are so important that they should come before someone else's fight for equality in the eyes of the State. The State has an interest in creating and maintaining a society based on ideals like equality, not on a baseless fear like homophobia.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I am doing no such thing. It's not my fault others can't argue against that position correctly.

I have no problem discussing something as I showed the last time I made clear my intention not to contribute further to this thread and returned, when the homophobe comments apparently weren't directed at me in particular, but here we are again. It's a pointless exercise.

Please complete the below sentence:

A married gay couple having full rights over an adoptive child is wrong because....

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Please complete the below sentence:
A married gay couple having full rights over an adoptive child is wrong because....

I have already discussed this. Given that the history of the thread has shown that any answer is going to be met with insinuations of homophobia I won't bother any further. Simples.

Stark

prinz wrote: »

I am doing no such thing. It's not my fault others can't argue against that position correctly.

I have no problem discussing something as I showed the last time I made clear my intention not to contribute further to this thread and returned, when the homophobe comments apparently weren't directed at me in particular, but here we are again. It's a pointless exercise.

The thing is you keeping opining that gay couples having children *would* be bad but fact is, it's been done for years and years and no ill effects have been observed yet. The link I posted shows one perfectly well adjusted pair of siblings and any published studies have all come to the conclusion that being raised by gay parents is just as good as being raised by straight parents.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

I am doing no such thing. It's not my fault others can't argue against that position correctly.

Against what position?:D:rolleyes::D You have 4 or 5 people telling you we dont even know what position you hold......

Are we all not seeing the obvious? Or perhaps, just perhaps, you actually havent explained your position....? What do you think it might be....?!!

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I have already discussed this. Given that the history of the thread has shown that any answer is going to be met with insinuations of homophobia I won't bother any further. Simples.

No, not "any answer", an answer that is nothing more than a vague idea that it's somehow bad for children in some unspecified way. Why is it bad for children?

Do you think homosexuality is contagious?

If not, what's the problem?

If so, why would that be a bad thing, if there's nothing wrong with homosexuality?

And if there is something wrong with homosexuality, what is wrong with it?

And if you do think something is wrong with it, how is that different to homophobia?

jill_valentine

Thus far, all I can tell is that you think people should get a lollipop for getting married to a member of the opposite gender, and you object to being called homophobic purely because you'd like to see homophobic policies implemented. Beyond that, things get a bit wishy-washy.

If I didn't know better Prinz, I'd say you're being a wee bit evasive about what you actually believe for fear you might be called to support or defend it.

sensibleken

prinz wrote: »

I have already discussed this. Given that the history of the thread has shown that any answer is going to be met with insinuations of homophobia I won't bother any further. Simples.

saying simples at the end of a sentence is gay!

jill_valentine

prinz wrote: »

any answer is going to be met with insinuations of homophobia

Homophobic answers, yes, it's likely.

Saying "I'm not homophobic! I just want gay people to have less rights than normal people so they can't threaten the future of human society!" won't really wash, no matter how much verbal sidestepping anybody does to convince themselves otherwise. You can see why, surely?

skregs

The gays should be allowed to marry whatever woman they want.
I can't wait for polygamy to come in so I can marry two 14 year old girls. And if gay marriage is legal, I can marry them to each other too

dvpower

skregs wrote: »

The gays should be allowed to marry whatever woman they want.
I can't wait for polygamy to come in so I can marry two 14 year old girls. And if gay marriage is legal, I can marry them to each other too

Bit early in the day to be drinking?