Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Cabaal

Good few years before you see progressive stuff like this in the catholic church...hell might just freeze over first

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/13/the-right-on-rev/

Part of an address by the Rev Paul Colton, Church of Ireland Bishop of Cork, yesterday to launch Cork LGBT Awareness Week.

“There are many Christians, including myself, who believe that God’s justice, God’s love and the inclusiveness of God, must bear fruit in unqualified equality for gay and lesbian people too. As a friend, a gay priest in the UK said only this weekend:

Being gay is not a choice, it is my being, who and what I am as a person before God and though it does not define all that I am it is inseparable from my sense of self and of course from my faith.

Strangely, something that gives me hope – paradoxically – is the fact that almost from the start, Christians have been arguing among themselves about something or other. First the argument was about circumcision.

Since then the Christian story has been one of prejudice, injustice, labelling as ‘the other’ and failing to show Christ’s love, being overcome step by step: slaves, Jews, science, single mothers, children born outside marriage, people in interchurch marriages, victims of suicide, the downfall of apartheid, divorcees, women (first in decision-making in the Church and then in the ordained ministry); standing up to racism. Think in our own lifetime of how, arising from our sense of the love of Christ, our attitudes have changed in the Church to many of these people, issues and situations.

Awareness is the state or ability to perceive. If that is to happen we all need to be open to looking around – to seeing, hearing, listening and encountering, yes, but most especially, to take the risk of reaching out to understand, especially of reaching out to embrace people we think are different from us.

I want, therefore, to encourage especially those gay and lesbian people who are involved in church life, or who once were, to engage with the debates many churches are having at the current time. About an hour ago Shirley Temple Bar tweeted: ‘Sharing LGBT stories is an important step on the road to equality.’ I agree with that, and I ask you not to give up on religion and religious institutions.

It is essential that your voices and experiences are heard and listened to. More important, it is vital that you do not let people drive you away. The loving welcome and inclusion of you is not theirs to take away: that love, that inclusion, that welcome, that belonging are God’s gift – God’s grace – offered to you as much as to anyone else.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd like you to be adult enough and accept that being Homosexual is as much a choice as is being Heterosexual, and stop peddling the line "if people want to be homosexual".

No offence intended, but I sense a linguistic over-sensitivity. 'If people want to be homosexual' is used in the context comparing people to those who are homosexual, but who do not wish to be. It is not meant to imply that the same sex attraction was chosen, but rather to distinguish between those who are same sex attracted and embrace it, and those who are same sex attracted and reject it.

Ask yourself how that stand's in comparison to the two lines you placed below it "That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner".

EDIT: another part of your writing - yet it is demanded that being attracted to a coupling that is intrinsically infertile be considered a non issue - (your likening of a heterosexual infertile couple to a same sex couple due to the procreation angle) is very much NOT A NON-ISSUE to some same sex couples, is important to both sides of the debate - Gays having YEA AND NAY sides. It's just being approached from two different angles, the equation of Marriage and Love VERSUS the equation of Marriage and Procreation. I can't decide if what you wrote (attracted to a coupling) refer's simply to the issue of procreation or if it also mean's you can't understand that same-sex couples, gay couples, can actually feel real love for each other, regardless of whether an act of sexual congress between them solely can end in procreation. You seem to have the equation of Marriage and Procreation as being the only way marriage can exist, be accepted or validated.

I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

keane2097

JimiTime wrote: »

NI make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Presumably you still think it should include couples who can't have kids but nevertheless are made up of a man and a woman?

Just to clarify, I've seen it asked a few times but haven't seen it directly answered I don't think.

gaynorvader

JimiTime wrote: »

{...}
I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

What makes you say so?
Do you deny that there have been childless heterosexual marriages in the past?

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

No offence intended, but I sense a linguistic over-sensitivity. 'If people want to be homosexual' is used in the context comparing people to those who are homosexual, but who do not wish to be. It is not meant to imply that the same sex attraction was chosen, but rather to distinguish between those who are same sex attracted and embrace it, and those who are same sex attracted and reject it.

Ask yourself how that stand's in comparison to the two lines you placed below it "That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner".



I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

So Jimi,what exactly is the negative impact of same sex marriage? You've rambled about it plenty but have never actually shown anything besides rambling.... You do a lot of rambling.

aloyisious

@JimiTime. No offence was taken due to linguistic sensitivity. The words written spoke volumes. I take it your clarification mean's you meant there are different thought and action trends amongst homosexuals as regards jiggery-pokery; some participate, some choose not to. As for embracing it, I accept what I am. I don't reject what God, or nature, made me.

Absolam

JimiTime wrote: »

'If people want to be homosexual' is used in the context comparing people to those who are homosexual, but who do not wish to be. It is not meant to imply that the same sex attraction was chosen, but rather to distinguish between those who are same sex attracted and embrace it, and those who are same sex attracted and reject it.

But what you actually said was "If homosexuals want to be homosexuals, then by all means be homosexuals, but its a real shame that those who see their inherent infertility as something to be considered an issue be labelled 'self hating' or 'bigoted' etc.". You're saying that those who embrace their sexuality are inherently more/less fertile than those who reject it? The more you explain your point, the less sense it seems to make; how does embracing your sexuality affect your fertility?

JimiTime wrote: »

I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child.

How, exactly, is it more unique than a man-man coupling? Since there appear to be less homosexuals than heterosexuals overall, surely that means a man-man (or woman-woman) coupling is definitively more unique than a man-woman coupling?

JimiTime wrote: »

While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Children occur outside of marriage too. If children are the unique element, perhaps we should set that relationship apart instead? We could perhaps, instead of saying people are married, say they are 'parents' instead. I think mot of the mechanics are in place already, so it's a fairly easy transition.

Then all the people who are currently married but aren't parents can stay married, all the people who aren't married but want to be can be, all the people who are parents can stay parents, and some of the people who want to be parents can become parents (because unfortunately not everyone gets what they want all the time). Would that be an acceptable resolution for you?

old hippy

JimiTime wrote: »

No offence intended, but I sense a linguistic over-sensitivity. 'If people want to be homosexual' is used in the context comparing people to those who are homosexual, but who do not wish to be. It is not meant to imply that the same sex attraction was chosen, but rather to distinguish between those who are same sex attracted and embrace it, and those who are same sex attracted and reject it.

Ask yourself how that stand's in comparison to the two lines you placed below it "That biological testimony, that they will never have the fulfillment of having a child with their partner".



I make no proclamations on the love that 2 gay people have for each other. I have pointed out that no matter how its spun, a man-woman coupling is unique. On its own. Different fundamentally, in that it is the only biologically compatible coupling that can actually make a child. While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Why set it apart? All relationships/marriages are unique - should they be set apart as well?

Instead of advocating some kind of apartheid here, can you not just admit it's normal?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Why? What are you trying to achieve by "recognizing" that, to you anyway, it's different?

iwantmydinner

JimiTime wrote: »

While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

To what end, though? What would the point of setting this "unique" relationship apart actually be?

old hippy

iwantmydinner wrote: »

To what end, though? What would the point of setting this "unique" relationship apart actually be?

Apartheid. Us and them. Normal and other. Right, Jimi?

Daith

JimiTime wrote: »

While marriage is not only concerned with children, it is most certainly a part of it, and I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

You are not required to be married to raise children.
You are not required to have children in order to maintain your married status.

Same sex couples can and are raising children yet can not marry
Straight couples can be married and not have children.

Marriage is a union of two people. I'm unsure if the ability of a man to insert his penis into a woman, ejaculate sperm and impregnate a woman is enough to set it apart. Should infertile couples not be allowed to marry?

Cabaal

JimiTime wrote: »

I believe society should recognize this unique relationship and set it apart.

Should society also separate out the unique status of a marriage of a white man and a white women?....you know the backwards ignorant argument that was used in bible belt America against mixed race marriages.

After all, a white marriage is unique!

Only white children can be created by a white couple, they have unique dna and they are statistically better off financially then a black person in the USA which means the child will have a better standard of living.

Would you support this unique classification as well JimiTime? After all, its all about the children in your view, anything else means you support a poor upbringing for children.

old hippy

Meanwhile; the oppression bandwagon rolls on

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/newt-gingrich-complains-that-homophobes-are-being-repressed-as-row-erupts-after-michael-sam-kisses-boyfriend-on-television-9376067.html

Cabaal

old hippy wrote: »

Meanwhile; the oppression bandwagon rolls on

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/newt-gingrich-complains-that-homophobes-are-being-repressed-as-row-erupts-after-michael-sam-kisses-boyfriend-on-television-9376067.html

Do they not see how crazy their argument is?

Imagine this

Newt Gingrich complains that racists are being 'repressed' as row erupts after interracial kiss on Star Trek was aired on television

How do they not see anything wrong with their insanely stupid defense?

old hippy

Cabaal wrote: »

Do they not see how crazy their argument is?

Imagine this


How do they not see anything wrong with their insanely stupid defense?

It's trying to legitimise bigotry and prejudice. It's insane but also dangerous.

Mark Hamill

Cabaal wrote: »

How do they not see anything wrong with their insanely stupid defense?

Insanely stupid defences are not normally used by sane, rational people.

aloyisious

old hippy wrote: »

Meanwhile; the oppression bandwagon rolls on

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/newt-gingrich-complains-that-homophobes-are-being-repressed-as-row-erupts-after-michael-sam-kisses-boyfriend-on-television-9376067.html

Gay Rights is the new grey for Newt, it's not black and white enough for him to understand our "intolerance" of bigotry.

Meanwhile, to bring a lighter tone to this thread..... http://www.amusingtime.com/images/03/funny-goth-and-gay-birds.jpg

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/16/you-could-tell-she-was-slightly-disgusted/

Four workers, including a nurse, a teacher and a clothes store assistant, tell of their experiences in dealing with homophobia in their workplace for a new Anti-Homophobia in the Workplace Campaign launched by BeLonG To and the Irish Congress of Trade Union earlier today – to mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

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

aloyisious

Louise Hannon, winner of Irish Law Court Case winner on grounds of transgender discrimination at work s/was to give talk at Liberty Hall.

robindch

Catholic Church forces woman to leave job after gay marriage is revealed

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/14/5024092/catholic-church-forces-woman-to.html

Kansas City Star wrote:

Colleen Simon insisted on performing her job this week out of devotion. On Wednesday, she managed a delivery of 2,000 pounds of food for the pantry at St. Francis Xavier Church. It’s work she sees as fulfilling God’s will, his call to serve. She couldn’t let the food spoil. But apparently, that is not the way the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph sees her role. Not anymore. Not after it was publicized that Simon is gay and married to another woman.

Simon’s job unraveled in a horrible confluence of unintended consequences that ran into the Catholic faith’s hypocritical stand on homosexuality. Simon’s work as coordinator of social ministries was profiled April 30 in The Star’s 816 newsmagazine. The article highlighted Troost Avenue — its history and the many interesting people dedicated to its vibrancy today. Colleen Simon and her wife, the Rev. Donna Simon of St. Mark Hope and Peace Lutheran Church, were mentioned deep in the story, along with the fact that they are a married couple.

The freelance writer didn’t intend to out the couple. They bear no grudge to her, nor to the priest currently serving St. Francis. The Simons have never hidden their marriage (in Iowa on May 19, 2012). Rather, Colleen Simon kept a don’t-ask, don’t-flaunt attitude. She said she told the pastor who hired her in July 2013 (he is no longer at the parish) of her marriage. But day to day, she avoided pronouns that would highlight it, substituting “my spouse” or “my beloved.”

“You don’t want your legacy to be one of division and ugliness,” she said. “It’s awful. But there are laws, and until that law gets changed in the church, it is what it is.” She says that in a series of emails and discussions that began last week, she was asked to resign. Colleen Simon believes that the order originated from Bishop Robert Finn. The diocese is declining to comment.

Simon is Lutheran, but she spent decades as a Catholic. And it is through Catholicism’s strong ties to charity and justice that she’s reframed her life. She moved to Kansas City from Virginia, a step in a transition from a prior career as a pharmaceutical representative. Hers was a pastoral role at St. Francis, which she understands makes a difference to the diocese. She took great pride in leading parishioners toward a more active role in the pantry.

She pressed for the congregation to not only offer food, but to examine systemic reasons for why people hunger. It’s the social justice role of faith, long embraced by the Jesuit-affiliated St. Francis Xavier, often in conjunction with its cohort on the east side of Troost, Rockhurst University. Simon is devastated. But her refusal to resign, her insistence on being fired, is not a stand on principle. It’s pragmatic. She might need unemployment benefits.

In November, Simon will reach the milestone of being three years cancer-free from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. But many bills from her treatment remain unpaid. At 58, she worries about her ability to find a new job quickly. She’s heartsick. But she says righteous indignation has no role here, not from her. “I knew this was a losing engagement,” she said. “I was just hoping for a longer engagement.” Many will find this episode shocking, believing that such discrimination is unheard of today. Headlines touting the acceptance shown to Michael Sam, the first openly gay football player on an NFL roster, are encouraging.

But important societal shifts happen by degree. Private struggles occur daily. Parents find themselves conflicted when a child comes out. Schools manage families fearful of a teacher who is believed to be gay. And many religions grapple with balancing long-held dogma and God’s call to embrace all of humanity equally. Pope Francis’ comment last year about homosexuality — “Who am I to judge?” — didn’t uproot Roman Catholic doctrine.

The church continues to fumble the fact that many within its flock — clergy, lay hires and parishioners — were created homosexual by God. They are people with talents to contribute. And they deserve not only God’s loving embrace but that of the faith’s leadership as well.

_Redzer_

I honestly don't see why gay people affiliate themselves with an organisation/ethos that despises them.

I could do an awful lot more good on my own than I could with them, and also not get treated like I'm some sort of evil deviant.

JimiTime

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I honestly don't see why gay people affiliate themselves with an organisation/ethos that despises them.

I could do an awful lot more good on my own than I could with them, and also not get treated like I'm some sort of evil deviant.

Some people don't define themselves by their sexual attractions. Sinners are sinners, and rather than being called to heterosexuality, we are called to holiness. Thats probably why many reject the notion of being defined by who they are sexully attracted to, and concentrte on defining themselves by Jesus' standards.

Absolam

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats probably why many reject the notion of being defined by who they are sexully attracted to, and concentrte on defining themselves by Jesus' standards.

Why do they embrace the notion of defing marriage by who they are sexually attracted to then? After all, by Jesus' standards, who you are sexually attracted to is not an issue. If it was, he'd have mentioned it.

shruikan2553

JimiTime wrote: »

Some people don't define themselves by their sexual attractions. Sinners are sinners, and rather than being called to heterosexuality, we are called to holiness. Thats probably why many reject the notion of being defined by who they are sexully attracted to, and concentrte on defining themselves by Jesus' standards.

At yet these people are treated by the church on the basis of their sexual attractions instead of Jesus' standards.

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

Some people don't define themselves by their sexual attractions. Sinners are sinners, and rather than being called to heterosexuality, we are called to holiness. Thats probably why many reject the notion of being defined by who they are sexully attracted to, and concentrte on defining themselves by Jesus' standards.

So no,you can't produce a negative effect of same sex marriage outside of the spiritual? Colour me surprised.

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Some people don't define themselves by their sexual attractions. Sinners are sinners, and rather than being called to heterosexuality, we are called to holiness. Thats probably why many reject the notion of being defined by who they are sexully attracted to, and concentrte on defining themselves by Jesus' standards.

But but but.... that'd put an end to marriage. All the men would stay single

Doctor DooM

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats probably why many reject the notion of being defined by who they are sexully attracted to, and concentrte on defining themselves by Jesus' standards.

Yet, those people are constantly defined by that by RC church and innumerable religious institutions.

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

Similarly if someone is born with a Penis and believes they are a woman or vice versa. I really do sympathise, but I hate the idea that I must pretend that its all perfectly normal. There is absolutely no doubt that its not in the slightest bit normal no matter how its spun. I really hope society realises that it being led down the garden path in all of this. It would be great if we could reach out with love to those experiencing such issues without pandering to the popular pretenses that men wanting to put their penises in other men or men thinking they are women etc is perfectly normal and non eventful.

Sorry Jimi, I had meant to pull you up on this little swipe against transgender people for a while now, just didn't quite have the time.

Study In Transsexuals: Significant Genetic Link To Gender Identity
Transsexual differences caught on brain scan
Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus.
Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism

There's an absolute wealth of information out there about the subject matter, the amount of research, studies and scientific evidence relating to transgender people over the last decade is amazing. I'm just posting a handful of links because I know you're not even going to look at them, I'm just posting them to illustrate something. Society is not as you say "Being led down the garden path" in these matters, but society simply understands more now about transgender people than it did before.

And yes, transgender people are normal.

freyners

Links234 wrote: »

Sorry Jimi, I had meant to pull you up on this little swipe against transgender people for a while now, just didn't quite have the time.

Study In Transsexuals: Significant Genetic Link To Gender Identity
Transsexual differences caught on brain scan
Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus.
Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism

There's an absolute wealth of information out there about the subject matter, the amount of research, studies and scientific evidence relating to transgender people over the last decade is amazing. I'm just posting a handful of links because I know you're not even going to look at them, I'm just posting them to illustrate something. Society is not as you say "Being led down the garden path" in these matters, but society simply understands more now about transgender people than it did before.

And yes, transgender people are normal.

Hey Links, I'm someone who would not be up to date on trans issues in slightest bit, no direct contact with trans-gender people in my immediate circle of friends but was friendly with a trans female who worked on the same campsite I worked on a few years ago. Jimi might not read them but I will, thank for posting these as its something I would like to know more about

Links234

freyners wrote: »

Hey Links, I'm someone who would not be up to date on trans issues in slightest bit, no direct contact with trans-gender people in my immediate circle of friends but was friendly with a trans female who worked on the same campsite I worked on a few years ago. Jimi might not read them but I will, thank for posting these as its something I would like to know more about

I've said before that a lot of the time when arguing with people like Jimi, my goal isn't to change their opinion, but the opinions of anyone else who might be reading.

This right here is why I post

Nodin

Links234 wrote: »

I've said before that a lot of the time when arguing with people like Jimi, my goal isn't to change their opinion, but the opinions of anyone else who might be reading.

This right here is why I post

One would think that the known and accepted existence of persons born with various combinations of both genders internal and external sexual/reproductive organs would cause the penny to drop.

freyners

Links234 wrote: »

I've said before that a lot of the time when arguing with people like Jimi, my goal isn't to change their opinion, but the opinions of anyone else who might be reading.

This right here is why I post

Its something I always wanted to read up on, its easy to be informed about gay/lesbian issues, a good number of my friends are gay. But trans is something I've never had a mind on until i started reading this thread regularly.
Anyways, thanks again

MrPudding

Links234 wrote: »

Sorry Jimi, I had meant to pull you up on this little swipe against transgender people for a while now, just didn't quite have the time.

Study In Transsexuals: Significant Genetic Link To Gender Identity
Transsexual differences caught on brain scan
Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus.
Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism

There's an absolute wealth of information out there about the subject matter, the amount of research, studies and scientific evidence relating to transgender people over the last decade is amazing. I'm just posting a handful of links because I know you're not even going to look at them, I'm just posting them to illustrate something. Society is not as you say "Being led down the garden path" in these matters, but society simply understands more now about transgender people than it did before.

And yes, transgender people are normal.

Jimi doesn't like research. He prefers to work on his own experience. He has said this on a number of occasions.

But like you say, the audience isn't really Jimi. I do find it irritating, however, that plenty of people engage with him, make plenty of points, provide papers and information, all of which he ignores. He disappears for while, then comes back and spouts the same sh1t, ignoring everything. I am a great believer in the idea that we post not necessarily for the people we are responding to, but those that might be undecided or wavering, but that does not stop his behavior from being extremely annoying.

I would have more respect for him if he simply said "I will ignore all evidence and evperience that contradicts my ideas, my world-view and what I believe my god thinks." At least that would show some modicum of honesty.

MrP

aloyisious

It was nice to hear the CoI Bishop of Cork, as reported by RTE 1 Radio, as saying that he was (in effect) OK with same Sex Marriage.

Bellatori

aloyisious wrote: »

It was nice to hear the CoI Bishop of Cork, as reported by RTE 1 Radio, as saying that he was (in effect) OK with same Sex Marriage.

Though not in my church, I'll bet! Oh and so long as they don't move in next door...

Did he have his fingers crossed?

gaynorvader

Links234 wrote: »

Sorry Jimi, I had meant to pull you up on this little swipe against transgender people for a while now, just didn't quite have the time.

Study In Transsexuals: Significant Genetic Link To Gender Identity
Transsexual differences caught on brain scan
Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus.
Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism

There's an absolute wealth of information out there about the subject matter, the amount of research, studies and scientific evidence relating to transgender people over the last decade is amazing. I'm just posting a handful of links because I know you're not even going to look at them, I'm just posting them to illustrate something. Society is not as you say "Being led down the garden path" in these matters, but society simply understands more now about transgender people than it did before.

And yes, transgender people are normal.

For a given value of normal. I would say that they are equally as normal as the rest of us! :P After all being unique is normal. :pac:

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Some people don't define themselves by their sexual attractions. Sinners are sinners, and rather than being called to heterosexuality, we are called to holiness. Thats probably why many reject the notion of being defined by who they are sexully attracted to, and concentrte on defining themselves by Jesus' standards.

Such a shame that others insist on defining people by their 'sexual attractions' and use that as an excuse to discriminate.

As for 'many' reject - got any linky to back that up Jimi?

aloyisious

Saw this Photo on Facebook from Ciarraí Amach - address below.

Also US news that federal judge has struck down Oregon-state's law banning same sex marriage.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27480181

Cabaal

18 states down, I'd say once it hits into the 30's the Gov will be forced into making a country wide decision on the matter

SebBerkovich

Cabaal wrote: »

18 states down, I'd say once it hits into the 30's the Gov will be forced into making a country wide decision on the matter

Well i wouldn't hold your breath... Mississippi only got around to the idea that people shouldn't have slaves last year.

So... the real question is what social issue will the world be dealing with when Mississippi has it's first gay marriage.

I'm thinking it'll be something like androids getting the vote.

robindch

Looks like the Gardai Band might be playing in the gay pride festival for the first time.

http://www.thejournal.ie/garda-band-pride-festival-1480061-May2014/?utm_source=email

Bellatori

In an attempt to be slightly on topic I noted the following on the BBC web site

Slovak parents fail to block adoption by gay couple

I particularly liked the attempt to pass the ruling off as essentially racist with

Lucie Boddington, from Děti Patří Rodičům - or Children Belong to Parents - a Slovakian charity which has been supporting the couple, said "This is I think in some way a cultural misunderstanding," she said. "In Slovakia, they were a model family - very different from the way some Roma live. The father is hard-working, well-educated; he wanted the best for his children."

This is after
"An earlier hearing heard evidence they had neglected their children. "
and
"The court heard the boys' older siblings' school attendance was poor, that they were left alone and "over-chastised" - the father admitted he had beaten them - and sometimes appeared dirty and unkempt. "

I also liked the bit where the parents had a go at Kent CC
"At the High Court earlier this month the parents accused Kent County Council of a "conscious deliberate effort... to transform our children from Slovak Roma children to English middle-class children". They claimed homosexuality was not recognised by the Roma community. Gay marriage has been condemned by Catholic bishops in Slovakia. "

I am sure that Slovakia will be pleased to note that in the UK the courts feel that a caring and nurturing environment where the children will be well looked after is better than them being beaten, neglected and being catholic.

I do actually wonder, if the real circumstances of these children were reported in Slovakia, how well it would go down. Generally, I find, people do not take children being abused and neglected, very well.

aloyisious

Bellatori wrote: »

In an attempt to be slightly on topic I noted the following on the BBC web site

Slovak parents fail to block adoption by gay couple

I particularly liked the attempt to pass the ruling off as essentially racist with

Lucie Boddington, from Děti Patří Rodičům - or Children Belong to Parents - a Slovakian charity which has been supporting the couple, said "This is I think in some way a cultural misunderstanding," she said. "In Slovakia, they were a model family - very different from the way some Roma live. The father is hard-working, well-educated; he wanted the best for his children."

This is after
"An earlier hearing heard evidence they had neglected their children. "
and
"The court heard the boys' older siblings' school attendance was poor, that they were left alone and "over-chastised" - the father admitted he had beaten them - and sometimes appeared dirty and unkempt. "

I also liked the bit where the parents had a go at Kent CC
"At the High Court earlier this month the parents accused Kent County Council of a "conscious deliberate effort... to transform our children from Slovak Roma children to English middle-class children". They claimed homosexuality was not recognised by the Roma community. Gay marriage has been condemned by Catholic bishops in Slovakia. "

I am sure that Slovakia will be pleased to note that in the UK the courts feel that a caring and nurturing environment where the children will be well looked after is better than them being beaten, neglected and being catholic.

I do actually wonder, if the real circumstances of these children were reported in Slovakia, how well it would go down. Generally, I find, people do not take children being abused and neglected, very well.

Well, there's nothing like a traditional marriage to ensure the proper upbringing of children, none of that mollycoddling stuff now.

robindch

Education People: Eileen Gamble, a gay teacher on coming out in the staffroom

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/education-people-eileen-gamble-a-gay-teacher-on-coming-out-in-the-staffroom-1.1806611

Irish Times wrote:

I’m an LGBT teacher with a fabulous sense of rhythm but an incredibly bad sense of timing. It took me eight years to realise I wanted to become a primary school teacher, and even longer to come out as LGBT, even to myself. After a 10-year straight relationship, a wedding and, in hindsight, a breakdown, I accepted I was a lesbian. Although I regret the major upset I caused my loved ones when I first exploded out of the closet, the support and positive reactions I have experienced from my family, friends and even my ex-husband, have shown that life is so much better for everyone when you truly embrace and accept yourself. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done when you are an LGBT teacher working in religious-run schools.

Coming out in a school leaves you exposed to far more than just opinions. Without the employment equality rights that most people take for granted, LGBT teachers are often left feeling vulnerable and isolated in their work environment. For many LGBT teachers, being open about their sexuality is not a risk they are willing to take. This can make the smallest things, such as staffroom conversations, immensely stressful. From nothing more than an attempt to include you, the questions about your personal life start rolling in. Suddenly you find yourself negotiating a minefield of innocent questions from friendly people who just want to get to know you better. They have no idea that you’re internally hyperventilating as you decide how best to answer. You don’t always want to spend your lunch break coming out to a group of people you’ve just met, including your principal and on occasion, the parish priest. Sometimes you just want to eat your lunch.

The self-editing is constant. You tend to avoid certain pronouns as much as possible, like saying “we” instead of “she”, and “their” instead of “her”. When someone presumes you’re talking about someone of the opposite sex, you just go along with it until they ask for a name and you either make one up or pretend to choke on your sandwich. Sometimes you might pretend you’re single when you aren’t. I hate this option, but I have used it. I have this incredible partner who I share my life with, and here I am pretending she doesn’t exist. It feels like cheating. It also gives people the opportunity to play matchmaker as they try to set you up with the sports coach.

You fake selective amnesia when asked about your weekend. Suddenly, you can’t quite remember the name of the pub you were in last Saturday, or the name of the sports or social groups you meet up with – every week. Or, you can take the pressure off by asking lots of questions instead of answering them. I frequently turn into an over-eager chatshow host, throwing questions left right and centre. It’s exhausting. The more I get to know these lovely people, the worse I feel and the harder it is to start being open. Schools are more than just workplaces; they are a community. Births, marriages and deaths are visibly acknowledged by the entire school. But as an LGBT teacher, sharing even the simplest facts about your life could put your place in this community at risk.

Like lots of young teachers, I don’t have a permanent position so over the past few years, I have had the chance to work in many different schools, of different religious denominations. I soon realised that I couldn’t carry on this charade for the rest of my career, without it affecting the quality of my teaching or my personal life. So I made the decision to answer staffroom questions honestly and openly more often. In general, coming out to staff has given me the opportunity to receive far more support and respect from other teachers than I expected. Awareness and support for LGBT teachers is growing day by day. Some LGBT teachers I know report that they have had absolutely no issues with being LGBT in their school. They feel as respected and valued as any other member of staff and have been assured by their principals that their sexual orientation is not seen as having any bearing on the quality of their teaching in any way. This has been my recent experience.

In other schools, discussing appropriate language about LGBT issues is still seen as being a taboo subject. I remember after I’d come out in one school, a teacher asked each member of staff at the table who they were spending Christmas Day with, but when it was my turn she hesitated before skipping me completely. Homophobic bullying I have been told multiple times that my sexual orientation is not an issue in school because I “don’t look gay”. One principal told me that I should be grateful for being a woman because if I had been a gay man, I would not have been allowed back in the school. I have also been told that Section 37.1 (see panel) would have no effect on my job unless I “flaunted my relationship”. When I asked what “flaunting” entailed, I was met with a rather non-committal answer that left me none the wiser. Did it include walking in the park with my partner when pupils from school might be there? Being seen eating in a restaurant with my girlfriend? Wearing an engagement ring or publicly celebrating a civil partnership? I still don’t know the answer. Some teachers and principals have expressed concern that a parent might have a negative reaction to the news. I’ve always found parents to be far more interested in how their children are doing in school than what a teacher might get up to in their free time.

This ambiguity about what constitutes “endangering religious ethos” referred to in Section 37.1 affects far more than just teachers. Homophobic bullying is the most common form of bullying experienced by young people. This year, all primary schools were required to include procedures and guidelines to specifically tackle homophobic and transphobic bullying in their anti-bullying policies. But the lack of discussion on the subject means that many teachers, both straight and LGBT, are unsure how to tackle the problem in the classroom. I have witnessed teachers ignore name-calling when it involves the word “gay”. Other times teachers attempt to stop name calling by telling the class that gay is a “bad word” simply because they are unsure what language is appropriate to children in this age group, and to the ethos of the school.

The issue is not going anywhere. There are children with same-sex parents attending religious-run schools; others have LGBT family members; many will discover as they get older they have LGBT friends or are LGBT themselves. For many LGBT teachers, the fear of losing our jobs is nothing compared to our fears that we are sending the message to our pupils that some types of bullying are worse than others and that some people and their families are worthy of less respect than others. This goes against the inclusive ethos that most schools strive to achieve. Things are changing for the better. As awareness spreads and support from schools communities, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, LGBT organisations and political figures continues to grow, I believe all schools can and will succeed in not just tolerating diversity of families and individuals, but celebrating it.

Eileen Gamble blogs at http://www.notasecond-classteacher.com

Cabaal

In all honesty, how in the hell can you have any sort of anti-bullying for gay people policy in any school with a catholic ethos? It just can't be done.

The catholic church calls gay people unnatural, as such its very foundation begins with a negative and until this changes then then any policy is counter their own ethos. Why can't people see the massive issue with this?

Abit more extreme but its like schools having a kkk ethos and then claiming they have a anti-racist policy in the schools.

Corkfeen

It horrifies me that it's risky for Eileen to write that article without hiding her identity. Fair play for the courage that it takes to be so open about it.

Delirium

Letter from an atheist teacher in response to the article about Eileen.

Sir, – I read with great pride the article by Eileen Gamble. As a primary school teacher who works in a Catholic school, but is openly atheist, I too have felt the pressures of not fitting in with the ethos of my school.

Ms Gamble rightly refers to the sense of community in a school. It is very difficult to be a member of the community when you simply do not belong to it. On the occasion of a prayer service, it can feel like you are under pressure to bless yourself to make yourself fit in. Of course there is no overt pressure; it is instead the implicit pressure of knowing that you are not included.

The law allows for religious discrimination to take place in our State-funded schools. My wages are paid by the taxpayer. This State-sponsored discrimination is reprehensible and it is beyond me how such an archaic system can still exist in today’s world.

I have been told by fellow teachers that I “should be careful” about admitting to being an atheist. To be told that by one of your peers is worrying when we are supposed to be teaching children about valuing each other and respecting everybody.

I look forward to the day when I no longer have to teach religion for half an hour a day, I look forward to being able to refer to “what Catholics believe” as opposed to “what we believe”, but most of all I look forward to the day when I feel valued for my teaching ability as opposed to my religious beliefs. –

Yours, etc,
STEPHEN MARKEN,
Glen Easton Drive,
Leixlip,
Co Kildare.

Cabaal

He's a brave man including his name, in short he has no job security because of his none-belief. ****en scary when you think of it!

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

He's a brave man including his name, in short he has no job security because of his none-belief. ****en scary when you think of it!

As I've said, I wonder what the unions would do if his job was at risk? They're quick to defend crap teachers, as my parents found out when we were in school. So if one of their members was fired for being gay or atheist or not the 'right' sort and conflicts with ethos, what would they do?