LGBT Noise March wants same sex marriage

glic71rods46t0

RichieC wrote: »

Me personally? none, I'm straight, I am however a human rights advocate.

The good news is your side is losing this one, eventually your homophobic crap will be forced underground and will slowly evaporate to a few lone nutters.


:cool:

Wow, what an intellectual post - and the cool smilie, you must be very proud of yourself!

RichieC

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

Wow, what an intellectual post - and the cool smilie, you must be very proud of yourself!

Thank you.

glic71rods46t0

RichieC wrote: »

Thank you.

You're welcome, but you might want to consider using more polite language, not everyone is like me and can appreciate your intellect. A lot of people might look at the rude language and deduce that you are a little dim!

efb

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Almost as nice as your one fenser!

irish_eyes

Marriage is for man and women, saying that though, if gays want civil partnerships that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to marry in churches, that's wrong.

RichieC

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

You're welcome, but you might want to consider using more polite language, not everyone is like me and can appreciate your intellect. A lot of people might look at the rude language and deduce that you are a little dim!

Perhaps you're right. I might be better served by being passive aggressive like you

efb

irish_eyes wrote: »

Marriage is for man and women, saying that though, if gays want civil partnerships that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to marry in churches, that's wrong.

It's Civil Marriage were marching for, if any church wishes to recognise it tho that's all good

efb

irish_eyes wrote: »

Marriage is for man and women, saying that though, if gays want civil partnerships that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to marry in churches, that's wrong.

Bigamy?

efb

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

You're welcome, but you might want to consider using more polite language, not everyone is like me and can appreciate your intellect. A lot of people might look at the rude language and deduce that you are a little dim!

Who are all these people you constantly speak of?

glic71rods46t0

efb wrote: »

It is all in Nodin's link, I didn't think you liked repitition...

So its about parenting and adoption rights. Not surprisingly, that Irish Times article showed a disconnect between that perceived support for gay marriage and the apparently much smaller support for gay adoption rights.
It highlights the fact that most reasonable minded people would, on the face of it, support same sex marriage until the implications for parenting and adoption is explained.

I have little doubt that, in the event of a referendum, the initial opinion polls would suggest the possibility of the referendum passing. However, as the campaign progresses and the full implications of the referendum passing becomes common knowledge you will see the yes vote ebb away and the referendum being defeated by a sizeable majority of votes cast.

glic71rods46t0

efb wrote: »

Who are all these people you constantly speak of?

The silent majority - we don't parade around and blow whistles but we exist and make our voices heard at the ballot box

efb

I'm glad you remain both open minded and so self assured.

efb

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

The silent majority - we don't parade around and blow whistles but we exist and make our voices heard at the ballot box

If they are silent how do you know their opinions?

RichieC

efb wrote: »

If they are silent how do you know their opinions?

it was a Nixon reference when he was trying to silence the anti war protestors in the 60's.

After all the liberal media just blows up the liberal opposition/support for things all while the poor conservative at home who's too busy to protest gets rail roaded...

glic71rods46t0

efb wrote: »

If they are silent how do you know their opinions?

Silent in that we don't feel the need to create "noise" by marching through Dublin City blowing whistles.
I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate if a referendum is put before the people

efb

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

Silent in that we don't feel the need to create "noise" by marching through Dublin City blowing whistles.
I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate if a referendum is put before the people

So you'd welcome a referendum? Were on the same page!

glic71rods46t0

RichieC wrote: »

it was a Nixon reference when he was trying to silence the anti war protesters in the 60's.

After all the liberal media just blows up the liberal opposition/support for things all while the poor conservative at home who's too busy to protest gets rail roaded...

so, you are aware that the changes you seek require a referendum?

RichieC

I welcome a referendum. if it fails we try again in another few years.

eventually sanity will win.

efb

Some of them yes. Due to our Catholic centric constition I'm not surprised by this and how this has been interpreted by the various AG's we've had.

efb

I'm glad this is all settled

LeixlipRed

irish_eyes wrote: »

Marriage is for man and women, saying that though, if gays want civil partnerships that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to marry in churches, that's wrong.

Why would any gay person want to be married in a church when all those institutions do is spew hatred against homosexuality? Equality under civil law and pardon my french but **** the church.

glic71rods46t0

efb wrote: »

I'm glad this is all settled

What, your happy with everything the way it is now! Great, settled it is - ok only kidding:D

In relation to the national debate around this issue I think much could be learnt by both sides if the real issue was the one being debated.
Many religious people (I am not one) get offended by the term gay marriage as they incorrectly equate it with the religious institution of marriage.
Perhaps if the issue was extending civil partnership to include parenting and adoption issues some people might feel less threatened by your demands?
I am in the no camp and despite the suspicions of some I am open minded and willing to change my position if the argument is credible and convincing.

teol

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

I am in the no camp and despite the suspicions of some I am open minded and willing to change my position if the argument is credible and convincing.

TBH I think you are fooling yourself that you are open minded.

Anyway here is the countries that allow gay adoption.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption

anymore

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

With respect you are being so generalised and non specific as to make the point not very worthwhile at all. In the past it was common that some socila classes used wet nurses but that doesnt mean that the wet nurses were regarded as anything other than a ' feeding facility'. Nor were nursery staff and nannies regarded as having ' parenting ' rights'. Similarily Grandmothers were frequently involved in chilod rearing but again tendednot to be invlovedin the decision making roles.

teol

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This happened to my Grandfather. His father (my great grandfather) died before he was born. As a result my Grandad was pawned off to his 2 unmarried Aunts while his Mother and sister emigrated to America. He turned out just fine and was a great man even though he did not come from a traditional nuclear family.

anymore

teol wrote: »

This happened to my Grandfather. His father (my great grandfather) died before he was born. As a result my Grandad was pawned off to his 2 unmarried Aunts while his Mother and sister emigrated to America. He turned out just fine and was a great man even though he did not come from a traditional nuclear family.

Rqually well you could say there were kids pawned off to relations who were treated as unpaid labour - I imagine that would have not been uncommon in rural areas and in farms. Problem is that we dont have statisitics to draw any conclusions from. I am also struck how the study mentioned above was focussed on lesbians. Do gay women see themselves as a froup apart from gay men ?

wes

I can see no reason why the government shouldn't allow gay marriage and the adoptions rights etc to same sex couples, and calling the march a "noise march", is not on imho.

Dr Galen

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

So its about parenting and adoption rights.

You seem somewhat obsessed with the link between gay marriage and gay adoption. It seems you are very sure that this is what "its" all about?

Are you assuming that this is what "its" all about for gay people out there that support and want full marriage for homosexuals?

reallyrose

An issue with same sex parenting would imply that ALL moral choices, personality traits, social skills, academic skills are connected to what we like to do with our genitals. (for fun, like).

So a child raised by a gay couple will ... what? What are the consequences?
The OP has repeated his/her belief that a traditional hetrosexual couple is the norm. Anything else is the not-norm.

So what actually happens to the children when the not-norm occurs?

Someone a few pages ago posted a study showing the outcome from children raised by lesbian couples which was dismissed by the OP because a lesbian dun it.

So are there studies carried out by a hetrosexual? Or are there studies showing that children raised by gay couples grow up to be mal-adjusted lunatics?

Come on OP. Back your views up.

I have my opinions about this issue. I support gay marriage. (Well to be honest I don't really care who gets married to who. As long as there is cake.)
Sway me. Change my mind. With facts mind, not with "But it's wroooooooong!"

reallyrose

reallyrose wrote: »

So what actually happens to the children when the not-norm occurs?

We turn out terribly confused, of course

meditraitor

I get the feeling that some people havent got a clue how difficult it is to adopt a child, there are hundreds if not thousands of people trying.
The specific requirements for adoption are very strict,

We are not going to have a sudden raft of homosexual couples getting to adopt even when they are allowed, they have to get in the cue and fullfill all the required criteria like everyone else......

The required criteria being

Supply a stable and healthy living environment for the child, lots of love man

Calhoun

Honestly what is the problem with same sex marriages having equal rights? As long as the kids are brought up in a loving environment and are nurtured to be responsible citizens where is the harm?

We have too many situations where hetro parents dont look after their own kids and they become a problem to society because they are not looked after (look at the amount of threads created just talking about this).

Like has been mentioned in numerous other threads across boards over the years you need a license for a car, a dog, a television but nothing for a kid. Why do the nay sayers believe that same sex couples must have to justify having kids.

Under that critiria it would be equal if all parents needed a license to raise and how would you feel if hetro couples had to also justify having kids?

Dr. Baltar

If Cannabis is illegal, people are still going to smoke it. If SSM isn't legal there are still going to be gay families. Whether you like it or not, there are queer families in the country now. There are kids who are being raised by two mams and two dads.
When one of these fathers dies, there are no rights for the second father to take care of the kids that he has helped raise. This is wrong.

Whether you disagree with it or not, it's not like legalizing SSM is going to start queer people adopting. Gay people have kids now. We need to legislate for the gay familes that already exist at the moment anyway.

anymore

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

If Cannabis is illegal, people are still going to smoke it. If SSM isn't legal there are still going to be gay families. Whether you like it or not, there are queer families in the country now. There are kids who are being raised by two mams and two dads.
When one of these fathers dies, there are no rights for the second father to take care of the kids that he has helped raise. This is wrong.

Whether you disagree with it or not, it's not like legalizing SSM is going to start queer people adopting. Gay people have kids now. We need to legislate for the gay familes that already exist at the moment anyway.

Queer families ? What on earth do you mean ?????

glic71rods46t0

reallyrose wrote: »

Come on OP. Back your views up.

I have my opinions about this issue. I support gay marriage. (Well to be honest I don't really care who gets married to who. As long as there is cake.)
Sway me. Change my mind. With facts mind, not with "But it's wroooooooong!"

I am in favour of the status quo - I am not seeking to change the law so why would I want to sway anyone's opinion??? You on the other hand support a change in the law. I have, from the outset sought debate on the issue(s) and so far, I have not read anything that would sway my opinion away from the status quo.
I continue to monitor the thread and will keep an open mind on the points of view expressed.
The main issue for me at this point is that a national debate is due on the issue - not a debate on allowing people to have their "big day" but the substantive knock on effects of legalising gay marriage! And I hope that the LGBT community adopt a transparent approach in their advocacy of the changes they desire.

glic71rods46t0

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

If Cannabis is illegal, people are still going to smoke it. If SSM isn't legal there are still going to be gay families. Whether you like it or not, there are queer families in the country now. There are kids who are being raised by two mams and two dads.
When one of these fathers dies, there are no rights for the second father to take care of the kids that he has helped raise. This is wrong.

Whether you disagree with it or not, it's not like legalizing SSM is going to start queer people adopting. Gay people have kids now. We need to legislate for the gay familes that already exist at the moment anyway.

There is no such thing as queer families or gay families. Such "families" in law are seen as 1 parent and a "friend". The children in question will have another biological parent ( and must be considered in the event of the death of the gay biological parent). The rights of that parent need to be discussed - its simply not on to ignore this aspect of scenario you outlined - a scenario outlined several times already in this thraed.

Delirium

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

There is no such thing as queer families or gay families. Such "families" in law are seen as 1 parent and a "friend". The children in question will have another biological parent ( and must be considered in the event of the death of the gay biological parent). The rights of that parent need to be discussed - its simply not on to ignore this aspect of scenario you outlined - a scenario outlined several times already in this thraed.

by that logic you've just said that adopted children or step-children are not members of a family. Gay families, and there's no need for quotes as they meet the definition of family, exist whether you like it or not.

nesf

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

The main issue for me at this point is that a national debate is due on the issue - not a debate on allowing people to have their "big day" but the substantive knock on effects of legalising gay marriage!

And these effects are and most importantly what's your evidence for them being negative?

reallyrose

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

I am in favour of the status quo - I am not seeking to change the law so why would I want to sway anyone's opinion??? You on the other hand support a change in the law. I have, from the outset sought debate on the issue(s) and so far, I have not read anything that would sway my opinion away from the status quo.
I continue to monitor the thread and will keep an open mind on the points of view expressed.
The main issue for me at this point is that a national debate is due on the issue - not a debate on allowing people to have their "big day" but the substantive knock on effects of legalising gay marriage! And I hope that the LGBT community adopt a transparent approach in their advocacy of the changes they desire.

So, you just want things to stay the same for ever and ever? No change in society, ever? For example, do you support multiculturalism? The integration of people from other countries is bucking the status quo, as you put it.
What do you consider to be the status quo? Any change in society? Or just changes relating to gay people?
Would you prefer a stagnant society?

I am supporting a change in the law to allow gay people to marry. You are supporting for that law not to change.
When I say 'sway me', I mean convince me to change my mind. Make me think 'gosh, that yuln6bap73hew1 is a sensible chap, perhaps the status quo should never change.'

For that to happen you need to present evidence to support your point of view, not just repeat it.
I'd really like to understand where you are coming from but I just don't get why anyone would want society to remain the same. Change is what drives a civilization onwards.

glic71rods46t0

nesf wrote: »

And these effects are and most importantly what's your evidence for them being negative?

Look at what you quoted of my post. It started with "The main issue for me....". This indicates that I was expressing an opinion. I didnt know it was a requirement of this forum for posters to provide evidence to back up an opinion? As you are a mod on this forum please advise if this is your interpretation of the charter?

I assume you havent read the thread ... here's a recap: it has evolved from my original post where I was asking the question as to why the LGBT community was seeking gay marriage rights in the context of civil partnership having already been granted.

From the replies, including links to other websites outlining the difference between civil partnership rights and marriage rights, it quickly became apparent that the main outstanding demand of the LGBT not already granted by civil partnership, is parenting/adoption rights.

My position is that advocates of gay marriage should be more transparent with regard to what they really want. Most reasonable people would not wish to deny 2 people who love each other having their "big day" - on the face of it it appears like a very benign and reasonable demand to be able to do this.

However, the real effect of gay marriage is to open a can of worms regarding parenting and adoption rights.
This is very important for at least two reasons
1. An Irish Times opinion poll from 2010 quoted earlier in this thread shows a large differential in public support for gay marriage versus gay parenting/adoption rights - indicating that the debate on this issue is not transparent enough.
2. The extension of parenting/adoption rights to gay couples would, necessarily, result in a dimunition in the rights of the other biological parent of any children affected by such changes. The debate is silent on this competing right.
Are those effects important enough to be considered in the debate in your opinion?

glic71rods46t0

koth wrote: »

by that logic you've just said that adopted children or step-children are not members of a family. Gay families, and there's no need for quotes as they meet the definition of family, exist whether you like it or not.

There is only the constitutional definition of "family" in law - and so called gay families dont meet it
Take a look at this arrticle
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/constitution-holds-sway-in-definition-of-the-family-unit-1971190.html

Delirium

Then the constitution needs to be updated, as it clearly doesn't reflect the many types of families that exist within the state.

glic71rods46t0

koth wrote: »

Then the constitution needs to be updated, as it clearly doesn't reflect the many types of families that exist within the state.

The Supreme Court doesnt agree with you. In order for an such "update" a referendum would be required which would need a majority of votes cast to pass. Its too simplistic and naive to simply state "the constitution needs to be updated" . This is the politics forum so the debate should, in my opinion, take place in that context. i.e. if you want to change the law, discuss the political strategy to achieve the changes desired. Its politically immature to expect the current strategy of creating noise and marching at the weekends as an effective political strategy

nesf

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

Look at what you quoted of my post. It started with "The main issue for me....". This indicates that I was expressing an opinion. I didnt know it was a requirement of this forum for posters to provide evidence to back up an opinion? As you are a mod on this forum please advise if this is your interpretation of the charter?

I'm afraid that were something is a factual matter, i.e. where one can find evidence to say one way or another, it is simply not good enough to say "well in my opinion X is true". In this case the vast body of evidence shows that gay parenting leads to no ill-effects on the children involved, thus it is irrational to hold that it is a negative thing after one has been presented with the evidence. One has to start from the viewpoint that gay parenting is no different to the parenting of a heterosexual couple.

Bear in mind that I say this as someone whose gut instinct says that gay parenting must be inferior, however; after seeing the stats I had to recant this view as there was little to no evidence backing up my feeling. I'm not 100% comfortable with gay parenting but I support it given that it has been studied intently and not found to be harmful.

glic71rods46t0

nesf wrote: »

I'm afraid that were something is a factual matter, i.e. where one can find evidence to say one way or another, it is simply not good enough to say "well in my opinion X is true".

That is a cop out. A basic command of the english language would be enough to realise that I was expressing an opinion. The opinion I was expressing was that a national debate on the issues surrounding the legalisation of gay marriage is needed. How could you construe this to be stating a "factual matter" and therefore requiring evidence? Please consult a dictionary before replying as I have grave doubts about your comprehension of what I posted:eek:

Later in my post I highlighted two major reasons why the debate on the "real issues" is required. You seem to have ignored these points in your reply. For your recollection, the issues I raised regarding the need to have a debate on the real, knockon effects of legalising gay marriage are:
1. An Irish Times opinion poll from 2010 quoted earlier in this thread shows a large differential in public support for gay marriage versus gay parenting/adoption rights - indicating that the debate on this issue is not transparent enough.
2. The extension of parenting/adoption rights to gay couples would, necessarily, result in a dimunition in the rights of the other biological parent of any children affected by such changes. The debate is silent on this competing right.
Are those effects important enough to be considered in the debate in your opinion?

I would expect better from a mod, never mind a Cmod!

nesf

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

That is a cop out. A basic command of the english language would be enough to realise that I was expressing an opinion. The opinion I was expressing was that a national debate on the issues surrounding the legalisation of gay marriage is needed. How could you construe this to be stating a "factual matter" and therefore requiring evidence? Please consult a dictionary before replying as I have grave doubts about your comprehension of what I posted

And you don't get to express an opinion on a factual matter on this forum counter to the evidence. Or, I should say, you are not allowed to not withdraw the point after evidence has been furnished to the contrary. Challenge the evidence if you want, point out the flaws in studies fine, but you don't just get to say "well I think X" and argue from there. The factual matter here are the "substantial knock-on effects of legalising gay marriage", i.e. they exist and must be provable one way or the other.

Calling for a debate is fine, alluding to negative effects without substantiating your points with evidence is not.

Btw, if I ever see you come out with the "you don't comprehend English" card again in a debate I'll remove you from this forum for being a dick.

Delirium

yuln6bap73hew1 wrote: »

The Supreme Court doesnt agree with you. In order for an such "update" a referendum would be required which would need a majority of votes cast to pass.

I'm well aware of that, and more than happy to see it put to a referendum.

Its too simplistic and naive to simply state "the constitution needs to be updated" . This is the politics forum so the debate should, in my opinion, take place in that context. i.e. if you want to change the law, discuss the political strategy to achieve the changes desired. Its politically immature to expect the current strategy of creating noise and marching at the weekends as an effective political strategy

People are creating noise to get the topic discussed, nothing wrong with that as long as no one breaks any laws.

LeixlipRed

It amazes me how people can come up with what they consider intelligent arguments to repress the fundamental basis of this whole argument, that one set of people in society are not considered equal to all others. Do they even realise they're bigots or does a healthy dose of self-delusion come into play?

glic71rods46t0

nesf wrote: »

And you don't get to express an opinion on a factual matter on this forum counter to the evidence. Or, I should say, you are not allowed to not withdraw the point after evidence has been furnished to the contrary. Challenge the evidence if you want, point out the flaws in studies fine, but you don't just get to say "well I think X" and argue from there. The factual matter here are the "substantial knock-on effects of legalising gay marriage", i.e. they exist and must be provable one way or the other.

Calling for a debate is fine, alluding to negative effects without substantiating your points with evidence is not.

Btw, if I ever see you come out with the "you don't comprehend English" card again in a debate I'll remove you from this forum for being a dick.

You keep ignoring the substantive point of my last 2 posts to you which indicates to me that you are more interested in scoring points against me personally than debating the actual issues. I didnt withdraw any point and robustly challenged the impartiality and validity of the so called study presented as evidence, earlier in the thread. The debate had moved on to the point where I stated my opinion in post no 136 that a national debate on the issue is required. You quoted me from post no 136 out of context and seem to have ignored this fact since.
I withdraw my accusation that you dont comprehend english. Please now reread post no 136 from which you quoted and you will realise that you crossed your wires.
I really dislike mods and cmods deciding to be a regular poster and then throwing their weight around with threats of a ban when they themselves are in the wrong.

anymore

nesf wrote: »

I'm afraid that were something is a factual matter, i.e. where one can find evidence to say one way or another, it is simply not good enough to say "well in my opinion X is true". In this case the vast body of evidence shows that gay parenting leads to no ill-effects on the children involved, thus it is irrational to hold that it is a negative thing after one has been presented with the evidence. One has to start from the viewpoint that gay parenting is no different to the parenting of a heterosexual couple.

Bear in mind that I say this as someone whose gut instinct says that gay parenting must be inferior, however; after seeing the stats I had to recant this view as there was little to no evidence backing up my feeling. I'm not 100% comfortable with gay parenting but I support it given that it has been studied intently and not found to be harmful.

X
Could you reference some of this vast body of evidence ?