Gay Adoption?

wonderfulname

StewartGriffin wrote: »

But the question is not "Parent" but "Parents"

A Mother is a wonderful thing.

Mom! Mom! Mom! Mommy! Mommy! Mommy! Mama! Mama! Mama! Ma! Ma! Ma! Ma?

We know you love your mother stewie but not all fathers are as incompetent as Peter Griffin. You're avoiding the question anyway, how on earth are mammies better than daddies?

cast_iron

wonderfulname wrote: »

They are, the surveys are quoted in this thread, I'd link you but I'm afraid you'd cry equality witch. Your opinion is rooted in ignorance and has been shown to be wrong, again you can find this information on thread.

There are surveys out there that will say anything you want - and both for and against this argument. They are generally commissioned for a purpose, where the desired conclusions are arrived at regardless of the reality. None of them actually prove anything conclusively.

Corkfeen

cast_iron wrote: »

There are surveys out there that will say anything you want - and both for and against this argument. They are generally commissioned for a purpose, where the desired conclusions are arrived at regardless of the reality. None of them actually prove anything conclusively.

This is peer reviewed and is basically an analysis of the most reliable of the data. Why not refute it if you're so adamant that your opinion is more reliable while this study is evidence based.
http://www.squareonemd.com/pdf/Does%20the%20Gender%20of%20Parents%20Matter%202010.pdf

Can you actually provide research to backup your belief or is it merely preconceptions that is your issue. It's arrogant to assume that you're right when in effect you are being ignorant of existing knowledge on the subject.

That study concludes that the well being of a child is not affected in a negative sense by having two parents of the same sex.

Current claims that children need both a mother and father are spurious because they attribute to the gender of parents benefits that correlate primarily with the number and marital status of a child’s parents since infancy. At this point no research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being

NuMarvel

cast_iron wrote: »

There are surveys out there that will say anything you want - and both for and against this argument. They are generally commissioned for a purpose, where the desired conclusions are arrived at regardless of the reality. None of them actually prove anything conclusively.

You might be right (only might though), which is why we also have real world experience. There are gay parents and as children raised by gay parents on this thread. Can you share with them how their situation was less than ideal?

KingMonkey

if there's an upcoming referendum on the right to civil partnerships between gay couples ill be voting no..i don't consider myself to be homophobic in the least but the great thing about living in a democracy is everyone is entitled to an opinion and make their call via a ballot box...

i just feel like it would cause more problems than solve them and def so in the case of gay couples adopting...

sure there's gotta be more pressing/important issues to be discussed than this no?

StewartGriffin

orestes wrote: »

So, in a discussion specifically about gay adoption, you want to make an interesting point by trying to forget the gay element?

Erm, are you sure you have thought this point through properly?

So, define what the "gay element" is in this case. I'm making the point that it's irrelevant.

Why are two gay male parents any different than two straight male parents?

Does the "gay element" improve their parenting skills? Does it give them a more maternal view? I think the answer is no.

wonderfulname wrote: »

how on earth are mammies better than daddies?

They're not. But it's nice to have one don't you think?

nozzferrahhtoo

Airitech wrote: »

I think it is. Men and women are equal but very different. A man will never understand what is like to be a woman and vice versa.

But it is worth adding to this that there is no reason to think they are required to.

Also there is no universal standard on how it feels anyway. Just because two people are the same sex it does not mean that each automatically understands what it is like to be the other. There is no universal experience of menstruation for example. In fact in many realms of discourse thinking "This person is X and I am X too therefore I know exactly what they are experiencing" can actually be a hindrance not a help!

You use the example of menstruation so let us use that. Imagine a mother who has never had an issue with it. She is one of the lucky ones who suffers very little from them, be it physical, emotional or hormonal discomfort. Now her daughter comes to her and is the complete opposite. This mother things she knows what menstrual experience is like and is therefore not only no more qualified to lead her daughter through this experience than a man is.... but is potentially worse because we risk a "Come on I know this is nothing, what the hell are you complaining about" mentality about it.

There are questions that all children will have and I see no reason to think that you have to know what it feels like to be able to answer those questions competently and effectively. I am a man, I do not need to menstruate to answer all the questions my daughter is likely to have about them.

What is best for a child is to have someone they feel they CAN talk to about private matters of this sort. What sex that person actually is should be immaterial.

I am entirely in agreement with you that children need positive role models in life. I just do not think that those role models need to be role models for being male/female.

nozzferrahhtoo

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is a mystery to me how so many people are making the exact same argument... all in individual different ways, with different words... yet you still somehow manage to misunderstand it so completely.

No one here is saying that "two ladies" is "ideal". That is NOT the argument we are hammering your door with. The argument we are hammering your door with is that there IS no "ideal" here at all and that there is no reason to think ANY of the parental configurations mentioned to be better (or worse) than any other.

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You do not know what we want you to say? We have asked many many times a very very simple question. What we want you to do is answer the question. Is that such a complex concept?

We already know you think this is the "ideal". The question, quite simply, is "Why". Is this the first time in your life you have been asked the question "Really, why do you think that?"?

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On what exactly?

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Things you are wholly imagining.

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Rounded in what way? What exact features or attributes would be missing or unbalanced?

nozzferrahhtoo

cast_iron wrote: »

Again, it's not really about the sex of the parents. That's not the angle it should be viewed from.

But that is EXACTLY The angle we must view it from with this fantasy of "All other things being equal except the relative sex/sexuality of the parents".

It is like saying "If all other things are equal... their skills, their available time, their income, everything.... which person would you give the job of cooking dinner to in a household, the man or the woman". Then saying "It is not really about their sex" when clearly it is.

The sex, or sexuality, of the parents, individually or relative to the other is to my mind not a factor that is relevant to the subject _at all_ let alone in this fantasy world of "all other things being equal".

cast_iron wrote: »

I don't think it's that unreasonable to say a child would be better off with a mother and a father as opposed to 2 fathers/2 mothers.

And I do think it unreasonable given there is no reasoning behind it that you have yet laid out. You simply assert it and back it up with repeated assertion. Repeating an assertion is no more an argument for a position than the initial assertion was. Perhaps even less so.

VinLieger

KingMonkey wrote: »

if there's an upcoming referendum on the right to civil partnerships between gay couples ill be voting no..i don't consider myself to be homophobic in the least but the great thing about living in a democracy is everyone is entitled to an opinion and make their call via a ballot box...

i just feel like it would cause more problems than solve them and def so in the case of gay couples adopting...

sure there's gotta be more pressing/important issues to be discussed than this no?

You Dont have a problem with it but youll be voting no cus it might cause problems? What kinds of problems? and for who? People having to question their small minded view of the world?
Im sure it was difficult and caused problems when rosa parks sat at the front of the bus and aske to be treated EQUAL, im sure it was difficult and caused problems when the suffragettes campaigned for the right to vote and to be treated EQUAL.
That is not an excuse to vote no no matter what way you want to argue it and just makes you out to be a homphobe(not saying you are just thats what your argument makes you look like as its completely illogical)

nozzferrahhtoo

StewartGriffin wrote: »

If we forget the gay element for a moment - who would you rather adopt your child: 2 straight men living as communal partners or 2 straight women living as communal partners?

Not enough information. As I said to another user the question above is no different to me than asking "Would you like an apple, or a slightly different apple". I need more information to mediate a decision.

The information you have given is one single attribute of the parents in question and it is the one attribute I think least relevant to the successful upbringing of a child.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

A gay man is no closer to being a woman than a straight man.

Nor are they required to be, either in their own life or in parenthood.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

A Mother is a wonderful thing.

Potentially but not inherently. Mine was as good as it gets. That does not mean yours or anyone elses automatically are too. Every person is different and becoming a mother does not automatically make a person more or less wonderful.

squod

VinLieger wrote: »

You Dont have a problem with it but youll be voting no cus it might cause problems? What kinds of problems? and for who? People having to question their small minded view of the world?
Im sure it was difficult and caused problems when rosa parks sat at the front of the bus and aske to be treated EQUAL, im sure it was difficult and caused problems when the suffragettes campaigned for the right to vote and to be treated EQUAL.
That is not an excuse to vote no no matter what way you want to argue it and just makes you out to be a homphobe(not saying you are just thats what your argument makes you look like as its completely illogical)

This is a rant. A poor quality rant designed to belittle people.

gcgirl

I have to laugh at some of the arguments used against gay adoption, in theory I was raised by 2 women my mum and my nan, I have 2 uncles that raised 7/3 kids on they're own girls included and they turned out ok, what a child needs is love and attention, I have 3 kids I parent alone and the kids have never been hassled or called names over my sexuality.
Plus on another note a boy who was raised by a mother and a father,who basically should have been taking into care only for the stupid keeping the family unit together stabbed and killed another boy, this could have been avoided had the boy been taking out of the equation
The most ****ed up people I know parents are still together

VinLieger

squod wrote: »

This is a rant. A poor quality rant designed to belittle people.

Good for you, you should be a detective

folan

adoption for none, minature irish flags for everyone else.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

So. I've been off line for a while, I need a recap.

Has anyone put forward a good argument for banning gay couples adopting yet, or are we still dealing with the "ah, a child needs a mammy and a daddy, so these" line?

Bannasidhe

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So. I've been off line for a while, I need a recap.

Has anyone put forward a good argument for banning gay couples adopting yet, or are we still dealing with the "ah, a child needs a mammy and a daddy, so these" line?

Nope. We are still on 'different', 'ideal' and 'needs daddy as male role model to be rounded.'

Funny how no one has mentioned girls needing mammies as female role models yet, it's always the ickle boys they are worried about. Masculinity must be a very fragile thing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nope. We are still on 'different', 'ideal' and 'needs daddy as male role model to be rounded.'

Funny how no one has mentioned girls needing mammies as female role models yet, it's always the ickle boys they are worried about. Masculinity must be a very fragile thing.

In fairness, it kinda is, but that's the result of the over-reliance on inflexible traditions for the sake of it and a society that can't handle people who don't want to conform for the norm and responds by ostracising them.

Bannasidhe

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In fairness, it kinda is, but that's the result of the over-reliance on inflexible traditions for the sake of it and a society that can't handle people who don't want to conform for the norm and responds by ostracising them.

Or that for some undefined reason girls are hot wired so don't require positive role models but boys if 'untaught' how to be a 'man' will become not a 'man'....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or that for some undefined reason girls are hot wired so don't require positive role models but boys if 'untaught' how to be a 'man' will become not a 'man'....

It's because a girl playing football is far less distubing to the populace than a boy playing with barbie dolls.

B0jangles

KingMonkey wrote: »

if there's an upcoming referendum on the right to civil partnerships between gay couples ill be voting no..i don't consider myself to be homophobic in the least but the great thing about living in a democracy is everyone is entitled to an opinion and make their call via a ballot box...

I can't believe that someone wrote these two lines and doesn't see the massive, glaring contradiction therein.

You are determined to vote to deny gay people equal rights but you really don't want to be labelled a homophobe?

I find the simplest way to avoid being called a homophobe is to not behave like one.

VinLieger

B0jangles wrote: »

I can't believe that someone wrote these two lines and doesn't see the massive, glaring contradiction therein.

You are determined to vote to deny gay people equal rights but you really don't want to be labelled a homophobe?

I find the simplest way to avoid being called a homophobe is to not behave like one.

Exactly, sentence basically translates to the always popular line "im not a homophobe but..." similar to the always classic "im not a racist but...."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

KingMonkey wrote: »

if there's an upcoming referendum on the right to civil partnerships between gay couples ill be voting no..i don't consider myself to be homophobic in the least but the great thing about living in a democracy is everyone is entitled to an opinion and make their call via a ballot box...

i just feel like it would cause more problems than solve them and def so in the case of gay couples adopting...

sure there's gotta be more pressing/important issues to be discussed than this no?

Then, may I ask, if not homophobia, on what grounds are you voting no?

And if it is homophobia (which it usually is, I'm open to alternate arguments, but any I've heard were just smokescreens) don't be ashamed to admit it. It's a democracy, you have the right to free speech.

Nodin

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's because a girl playing football is far less distubing to the populace than a boy playing with barbie dolls.

Damn right. Unless he's torturing it - thats grand.

NuMarvel

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly, sentence basically translates to the always popular line "im not a homophobe but..." similar to the always classic "im not a racist but...."

On the other hand, at least no one has resorted to 'some of my best friends are gay', so that counts as some kind of progress. :pac:

Bannasidhe

NuMarvel wrote: »

On the other hand, at least no one has resorted to 'some of my best friends are gay', so that counts as some kind of progress. :pac:

Some of my worst enemies are gay.

True story.

wetfoot

KingMonkey wrote: »

if there's an upcoming referendum on the right to civil partnerships between gay couples ill be voting no..i don't consider myself to be homophobic in the least

Respectfully, denying the gays equal rights by actively voting against them is a teeny tiny bit homophobic imo.

You see, back in the old days us gays were ever so grateful to be around people who tolerated us but we've gone all militant now and not being queer bashed simply isn't enough any more. I personally literally could not give the tiniest hint of a ****e whether someone approves of me or accepts me and I'm no longer grateful when someone tells me that it's ok I'm gay. Of course it's ok, I don't need anyone's permission to think women are dreamy just as I'm not running around telling every single stranger I pass that their life partner choices are ok with me.

I do however believe that my right to think women are dreamy should be enshrined in law, in all the laws.

And, btw I also completely get that there are people who think I am wrong or damaged or dangerous and I have no problem whatsoever with someone who stands up and tells me that, I think it far more honest than people who hide behind child protection or legalise instead of just admitting that they think being gay is wrong. I won't respect someone who says that but I will respect the fact that they have the courage of their misplaced convictions to say it.

wonderfulname

Just musing on the mammies and daddies train of thought, somebody made the point earlier that a child is raised by a community, I think this is pretty relevant, my parents weren't the only people who raised me, my childhood 'role models' could be listed as my parents, nan, uncle, older cousins, godfather, a family friend, the next door neighbours and a particular teacher, these are people who cared for me as a child and had a huge impact on my life, regardless of the genders of my parents I wouldn't have been wanting of 'male' or 'female' role models. If you all look at your own childhoods are your parents really the only big influences there?

Bannasidhe

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's because a girl playing football is far less distubing to the populace than a boy playing with barbie dolls.

But is that because masculinity is seen as preferable/better so there is some 'logic' to girls displaying so-called masculine traits (the Tom Boy) but for boys to display so-called feminine ones means they displaying characteristic associated with the 'lesser'?

Not to mention that a GI Joe is still a bloody doll no matter how much camouflage you dress it up in...:pac:

NuMarvel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not to mention that a GI Joe is still a bloody doll no matter how much camouflage you dress it up in...:pac:

GI Joe is a wuss. Give me Transformers any day!

Bannasidhe

NuMarvel wrote: »

GI Joe is a wuss. Give me Transformers any day!

Oh to have all of those Transformers still in their original packaging that I paid a fortune for in the 1990s. Should have kept them and given the little ****e a Barbie. :mad:

StewartGriffin

Is there actually going to be a referendum on the issue of gay adoptions or is this all just board.ie waffle?

Personally I don't see why there should be a need to vote, its a basic human rights/equality issue and the Dail should be able to pass it.

After that, as with heterosexual couples, all decisions will be up to the qualified adoption people and their only concern is what is best for the child in each individual case.
They should take no accounts of how discriminated against parents of any colour/creed/gender may feel.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not to mention that a GI Joe is still a bloody doll no matter how much camouflage you dress it up in...:pac:

Its an action figure. Totally different.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Is there actually going to be a referendum on the issue of gay adoptions or is this all just board.ie waffle?

As far as I know the Seaad have to approve but it's expecte to be a formality, so yes there will.

Personally I don't see why there should be a need to vote, its a basic human rights/equality issue and the Dail should be able to pass it.

Because it requires a Consistutional change. (Again, as far as I know!)

After that, as with heterosexual couples, all decisions will be up to the qualified adoption people and their only concern is what is best for the child in each individual case.
They should take no accounts of how discriminated against parents of any colour/creed/gender may feel.

Agreed. But then they should not be discriminting against parents in the first place on those critera.

VinLieger

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Is there actually going to be a referendum on the issue of gay adoptions or is this all just board.ie waffle?

Personally I don't see why there should be a need to vote, its a basic human rights/equality issue and the Dail should be able to pass it.

After that, as with heterosexual couples, all decisions will be up to the qualified adoption people and their only concern is what is best for the child in each individual case.
They should take no accounts of how discriminated against parents of any colour/creed/gender may feel.

There doesnt need to be a refendum on gay adoption but thanks to the high court reading the constitution in a very specific way, even though it makes NO mention of gender in regards to marriage, it looks like there will have to be one for gay marriage

Bannasidhe

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Is there actually going to be a referendum on the issue of gay adoptions or is this all just board.ie waffle?

Personally I don't see why there should be a need to vote, its a basic human rights/equality issue and the Dail should be able to pass it.

After that, as with heterosexual couples, all decisions will be up to the qualified adoption people and their only concern is what is best for the child in each individual case.
They should take no accounts of how discriminated against parents of any colour/creed/gender may feel.

There may be a referendum to allow same-sex marriage as it is the opinion of the government that the Constitution defines marriage as being between a man and a woman (it doesn't). A referendum would help in that it would make it very hard to mount a legal challenge against any same-sex marriage legislation on the grounds of constitutionality.

As adoption legislation states that only married couples can adopt as a couple - should same-sex marriage be introduced then the 'right' to adopt is implicit in that.

There is no need for a referendum on gay adoption as gay people can and do adopt but currently only as individuals- so it would open up a can of worms to try and say that same-sex couples can marry but cannot adopt as a couple unlike straight married couple but can continue to adopt as individuals.



I would expect that should that be the case the ink wouldn't have dried on the Act before someone goes to Europe with a discrimination case. It would be hard to see how Ireland (inc) could defend a situation where it allows same-sex couples to marry but not adopt while at the same time allowing married opposite-sex couples and gay individuals to adopt.

Essentially 'married' legally will mean the same whether you are gay or straight and part of being married is the 'right' to apply to adopt as a couple.
Certainly the Dáil could have included adoption rights in the Civil Partnership Legislation but chose the path of least resistance (or of allowing gay couples the bear minimum depending on how you want to spin it) and simply ignored pretty much anything to do with children.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

Its an action figure. Totally different.

Just like my Xena Warrior Princess is an action figure not a doll.

NuMarvel

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Is there actually going to be a referendum on the issue of gay adoptions or is this all just board.ie waffle?

Personally I don't see why there should be a need to vote, its a basic human rights/equality issue and the Dail should be able to pass it.

After that, as with heterosexual couples, all decisions will be up to the qualified adoption people and their only concern is what is best for the child in each individual case.
They should take no accounts of how discriminated against parents of any colour/creed/gender may feel.

There won't be a referendum on the issue of adoption, but it will doubtless form part of the debate around same sex marriage whenever that referendum is put to the people. The Adoption Act itself won't need to change when same sex marriage is brought in, because gay married couples can then apply like every other married couple.

Czarcasm

wonderfulname wrote: »

Just musing on the mammies and daddies train of thought, somebody made the point earlier that a child is raised by a community, I think this is pretty relevant, my parents weren't the only people who raised me, my childhood 'role models' could be listed as my parents, nan, uncle, older cousins, godfather, a family friend, the next door neighbours and a particular teacher, these are people who cared for me as a child and had a huge impact on my life, regardless of the genders of my parents I wouldn't have been wanting of 'male' or 'female' role models. If you all look at your own childhoods are your parents really the only big influences there?

That was me, in what now seems to have been a futile attempt to move the discussion on a bit past the "gay parents should be allowed to adopt/no they shouldn't" back and forth.



You'd swear children remain children forever and are raised in a parental bubble the way some posters are going on, that they'll never meet anyone else as they grow up. Even the theory of adoption itself means that the child was already given up by somebody, does the child not deserve the opportunity of a better life?

Because being raised in a place where they feel they are unwanted, unseen and unrecognised by society, is no way for anyone to grow up.

Bannasidhe

Czarcasm wrote: »

You'd swear children remain children forever and are raised in a parental bubble the way some posters are going on, that they'll never meet anyone else as they grow up.

It's mad how some posters seem to think this is the case.

Why arn't they so concerned about single parents?

33% of births in Ireland in 2011 were to 'single' mothers (some may have been cohabiting but legally would be considered 'single' in this instance)- that is over 24,000 in one year. Where are the calls for legislation to ensure these children have the 'correct' role models? That is an awful of of children who are apparently going to grow up not fully rounded.

What about widows/widowers?

Do the 'must have a mammy and a daddy' brigade honestly want a situation where Husband/Wife dies and its 'sorry, but we do not think you are equipped to provide a child of the opposite gender all they need to become a rounded adult so we are taking them into care to be adopted by some ideal heterosexuals. It is for the good of the children so we expect you to comply without a fuss.' ?

Because that is the logical extension of all of this children need a mammy and daddy guff.

Or is it, as I suspect, only a cause for concern when we are talking about the gays...

KingMonkey

love hearing the replies here....haha,im not homophobic,def not hey more women for me is the way i look at it

but i do believe the sanctity of marriage is between a man and a woman just like it says so in the bible and i ain't even that religious

trouble with gay people is (in my opinion) they feel like the oppressed and love to rant and rave about it,stick it in your face

ive never said anything to any gay person ive met,like any form of attack or belittlement...thats just bad manners/no class (plus im not like that )

think i didnt know there would be a backlash? but somehow i feel im just saying what alot of people think....

theres not right or wrong here,but everyones entitled to an opinion,even me...if i could use harsher language here i would have....

love that guys rant too...u just showed yourself up there punk

Bannasidhe

KingMonkey wrote: »

love hearing the replies here....haha,im not homophobic,def not hey more women for me is the way i look at it

but i do believe the sanctity of marriage is between a man and a woman just like it says so in the bible and i ain't even that religious

trouble with gay people is (in my opinion) they feel like the oppressed and love to rant and rave about it,stick it in your face

ive never said anything to any gay person ive met,like any form of attack or belittlement...thats just bad manners/no class

think i didnt know there would be a backlash? but somehow i feel im just saying what alot of people think....

theres not right or wrong here,but everyones entitled to an opinion,even me...if i could use harsher language here i would have....

love that guys rant too...u just showed yourself up there punk

Why on Earth should Gay people feel oppressed?

It's not like it took the European Court of Human Rights to order Ireland to de-criminalise male homosexuality.

Or that gay people are constantly being compared to paedophiles.

Or beaten up just for being Gay.

Or thrown out by their family.

Or that lesbians are raped to 'cure' them.

Or that countries want to introduce legislation to execute them.

Or that the man who considers himself God's spokesman says Gays are a threat to humanity.

Or even that we have to listen to numpties telling us what is wrong with us.

You're right - the gays are just causing drama as they have nothing to complain about.

VinLieger

KingMonkey wrote: »

love hearing the replies here....haha,im not homophobic,def not hey more women for me is the way i look at it

but i do believe the sanctity of marriage is between a man and a woman just like it says so in the bible and i ain't even that religious

And the bible has what to do with this? Marriage isnt a religious concept and its been around WAY longer than christianity so theres no relevance to that argument.

KingMonkey wrote: »

trouble with gay people is (in my opinion) they feel like the oppressed and love to rant and rave about it,stick it in your face

Well your advocating them having less rights than everyone else so what would you call that other than oppression?

KingMonkey wrote: »

ive never said anything to any gay person ive met,like any form of attack or belittlement...thats just bad manners/no class

So its only bad manners to say it to their faces? Would it be ok to say it as long as they cant hear it then? Honestly curious about this as thats how that reads

KingMonkey wrote: »

think i didnt know there would be a backlash? but somehow i feel im just saying what alot of people think....

Oh you dont say it to their faces simply cus your afraid how it would make you look? Not that its rude like you previously stated i get you now.

KingMonkey wrote: »

theres not right or wrong here,but everyones entitled to an opinion,even me...if i could use harsher language here i would have....

love that guys rant too...u just showed yourself up there punk

Well actually theres is a right and wrong here, one group of people is being actively discriminated by another group of people, not sure how you can see that as not being wrong.
Iassume your calling me a punk? Exactly how did i show myself up? I believe you are a bigot and a homophobe but again thats just my opinion and like you say everyones entitled to one

KingMonkey

or writing a long post like this... it says no or yes on the ballot for a reason...

harsh but true,my vote has the same value as you...

KingMonkey

nice so u can insult me and get away with it even tho i said nothing to you...oh how oppresed you are

VinLieger

KingMonkey wrote: »

nice so u can insult me and get away with it even tho i said nothing to you...oh how oppresed you are

Oh im not gay, interesting that you just assume that though, am i not allowed be straight and still pro gay marriage?

Corkfeen

KingMonkey wrote: »

nice so u can insult me and get away with it even tho i said nothing to you...oh how oppresed you are

You don't have any knowledge of the subject and refuse to educate yourself on it. But you're supposedly not homophobic but you have all the qualities of it due to an irrational belief that something bad will happen. People also had an irrational belief that everything would fall apart with interracial marriage and the civil rights movement........

K-9

KingMonkey wrote: »

nice so u can insult me and get away with it even tho i said nothing to you...oh how oppresed you are

Mod: Don't post on this thread again thank you.

KingMonkey

so ur pro and im opposed but somehow im a homophobe and a bigot because i oppose your view....right

get real

Czarcasm

KingMonkey wrote: »

love hearing the replies here....haha,im not homophobic,def not hey more women for me is the way i look at it

There's plenty to go around, even some left for the lesbians believe it or not, but with your attitude I can't see too many women tripping over themselves for you.

but i do believe the sanctity of marriage is between a man and a woman just like it says so in the bible and i ain't even that religious

Clearly not that well educated either if you are not aware of such a thing as a civil marriage, which carries all the legal entitlements, but none of the religious baggage.

trouble with gay people is (in my opinion) they feel like the oppressed and love to rant and rave about it,stick it in your face

If only they'd fcuk off back into their dark holes and not be out walking amongst us straight folk as we go about our business, how dare they expect equal treatment in the eyes of the law which was put in place to give equal rights to ALL the citizens of this country, not just the straight citizens. Quite fond of the ill informed ranting and raving yourself though.

ive never said anything to any gay person ive met,like any form of attack or belittlement...thats just bad manners/no class

That's very polite of you to internalise your bigotry like that, I'm sure the gay people you've met have appreciated your efforts to exercise self control.

think i didnt know there would be a backlash?

So this post is just attention seeking then?

but somehow i feel im just saying what alot of people think....

This wouldn't be the first thing you were wrong about. Stick around, you might learn something.

theres not right or wrong here,but everyones entitled to an opinion,even me...

Some opinions carry more weight than others, an informed opinion for example carries more weight than an ill informed opinion, but this being the Internet you can pretty much knock out any opinion you want, however ill informed.

if i could use harsher language here i would have....

It's grand, I use salty language around here myself the whole time, but for the most part I try to keep it civil.

love that guys rant too...u just showed yourself up there punk

Mind you don't blind yourself with that beam in your eye!