Gay Marriage an attack on children - IONA

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
I resent how a minority in the gay community hand 'ammo' to the homophobic bigots by making out we all want to bring up children. Most of us don't, and I resent the legitimate demands for equality being obstructed because the Religious Right and their hangers on (some of them among certain FF Senators) have been given a license to pretend that if gay rights are granted, then it's going to lead to children being brought up by same-sex couples. I have no interest whatever in being a parent and consider that nature intended for children to be brought up by mothers and fathers. I don't feel that this situation would mean I am being discriminated against because it is not comparing like with like. What gay people want is a form of civil-partnership - call it marriage even - that suits our circumstances, including hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights (especially regarding property), the right to make joint tax-returns etc. We recognise that the context is different from straight-couples.
 


NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,420
FutureTaoiseach said:
I resent how a minority in the gay community hand 'ammo' to the homophobic bigots by making out we all want to bring up children. Most of us don't
There is a difference between not wanting to adopt children with a same-sex partner yourself and wishing to deny other couples that right. And why dont you even consider child welfare in your post?
 

returning officer

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
139
This timing of campaign for Marriage Equality, is very odd, to say the least. There are about 2,500 co-habiting same-sex couples in this country, so there is no great demand for it currently. Civil Unions will end the effects of non-recognition of those relationships, so there is no great justice behind it (when they can get enough Parliamentary Drafters to deliver it my March. A long shot).

The form of Civil Parternships will be what really matters (in my view the Labour's version was the best one I have seen - albeit with some tweaking). The closer that gets to equivilance with marriage (as the Constitution will allow) the better, in my view. My original view was that instead of having 4 years before a divorce, a shorter period could be provided for it - however there is no logical reasons for this bar personal preference. The other difference I would have wanted was use of pre-nuputal agreements - again there is no reason why this should be allowed for some recognisied relationships over others.

As the law stands now (after the Zappone decision), Equality in Marriage, will require a referendum. While the Greens and SF have supported that, FF and FG are against it and in my view will be against it for a a long time to come. So the question is unlikely to be asked. Also in my view, such a referendum will not pass, when one's looks at the demographics of people who actually vote.

So what Equality in Marriage do, is provide a platform for Quinn et al to attack Civil Partnership (which save for Baby Ann cases should be the same), at the crucial stage it is being actually being considered. The effect is to scare the FF horses.

This campaign is as counterproductive as one could find.
 

popper

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
297
NeilW said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
I resent how a minority in the gay community hand 'ammo' to the homophobic bigots by making out we all want to bring up children. Most of us don't
There is a difference between not wanting to adopt children with a same-sex partner yourself and wishing to deny other couples that right. And why dont you even consider child welfare in your post?

What right would that be? There is no "right" to have children on the part of anyone who is not a biological parent and even that is heavily circumscribed by child protection legislation.

Children are not fashion accessories or pawns in some liberal game.
 

Defeated Romanticist

Active member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
277
Oh oooo...

This is going to turn into one of those types of threads. Well I'd better add my two cents before it reaches page 52.

The Iona institute are ofcourse right. The only reason marraige exists is because of children. That is why the legal consumation is vaginal inter-course. For this reason to allow homosexual couples to "marry" would be an impossibility, like putting a square box into a round hole. It would require a fundemental redefinition of marraige. There is no reason to do this. Nor is there any justification for re-writing history and tradition(which is why we have civil marraige) to do this.

Now ofcourse not everyone who gets married has children by the traditional method or at all. But this does not change the reason for marraige's existance in the first place.
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
12,136
FutureTaoiseach said:
I resent how a minority in the gay community hand 'ammo' to the homophobic bigots by making out we all want to bring up children. Most of us don't, and I resent the legitimate demands for equality being obstructed because the Religious Right and their hangers on (some of them among certain FF Senators) have been given a license to pretend that if gay rights are granted, then it's going to lead to children being brought up by same-sex couples. I have no interest whatever in being a parent and consider that nature intended for children to be brought up by mothers and fathers. I don't feel that this situation would mean I am being discriminated against because it is not comparing like with like. What gay people want is a form of civil-partnership - call it marriage even - that suits our circumstances, including hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights (especially regarding property), the right to make joint tax-returns etc. We recognise that the context is different from straight-couples.
A bigot doesnt need ammo and you should stop debating a point if you have no interest in it as you say above. Whats strikes me in your posts on this issue is the level of selfishness you display on the issue - I dont want same sex family because I might have listen to more homophobic rantings. You will have to listen to them til the day you die I am afraid, we will always have w@nkers who want to pick on others.

Theres an awful lot of 'I''s in your posts - luckily the gay rights movement is based on a stand of 'we'.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Defeated Romanticist said:
Oh oooo...

This is going to turn into one of those types of threads. Well I'd better add my two cents before it reaches page 52.

The Iona institute are ofcourse right. The only reason marraige exists is because of children. That is why the legal consumation is vaginal inter-course. For this reason to allow homosexual couples to "marry" would be an impossibility, like putting a square box into a round hole. It would require a fundemental redefinition of marraige. There is no reason to do this. Nor is there any justification for re-writing history and tradition(which is why we have civil marraige) to do this.

Now ofcourse not everyone who gets married has children by the traditional method or at all. But this does not change the reason for marraige's existance in the first place.
It is nonsensical to claim that marriage is just about procreation. Were that true there wouldn't be marriage of elderly or infertile couples. It is not simply about procreation and indeed in some cases it isn't about it at all. Some married couples do not even want children.

For me, marriage is about legitimising adult relationships be they str8 or gay. It means ending the unacceptable and immoral situation where gay partners are denied visitation rights in hospitals or face losing their homes when their partners die.

Theres an awful lot of 'I''s in your posts - luckily the gay rights movement is based on a stand of 'we'.
Indeed and I want to challenge the radical wing of the community who tend to portray some of their more maximalist demands as being the views of "us" when in some cases they represent the views of an outspoken minority of the gay community.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
Defeated Romanticist said:
Oh oooo...

This is going to turn into one of those types of threads. Well I'd better add my two cents before it reaches page 52.

The Iona institute are ofcourse right. The only reason marraige exists is because of children. That is why the legal consumation is vaginal inter-course. For this reason to allow homosexual couples to "marry" would be an impossibility, like putting a square box into a round hole. It would require a fundemental redefinition of marraige. There is no reason to do this. Nor is there any justification for re-writing history and tradition(which is why we have civil marraige) to do this.

Now ofcourse not everyone who gets married has children by the traditional method or at all. But this does not change the reason for marraige's existance in the first place.
If the reason and the purpose of marriage is all about children, why is the institution of marriage open to those unable to have children?

I accept that the historical norm and tradition dictates that marriage be between a man and a woman. But then, once upon a time, the historical norm and tradition dictated that we didn't marry people of other races and that women were the property of their husbands.

Thankfully, we had the good sense and decency to leave all that behind when changing what the institution of marriage means. And no doubt we were treated at the time to lots of rhetoric about the meaning and purpose of marriage and how this meant the insitution shouldn't change.

Simply pointing to the fact that something is traditional isn't, by itself, much of a reason for keeping it that way.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,717
It is the ultimate triumph of the self for gay couples to insist on their 'right' to rear children. Selfishness dressed up as selflessness. This is not about homophobia, or boneheaded idiots who can't cope with the existence of same-sex unions, and there should, of course, be a measure of legal recognition and protection, but not pseudo-'marriage', and not the chance to play 'happy families' with a child. It would not be a family, just a parody of a family.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
6
I have no problem with gay marriage. You do your thing I couldn't care less. But where children are concerned its different. I could go into all sorts of reasons but heres the main 1. Does no one here remember what school was like? Where anybody who was different was picked on. Primary school isn't too bad but imagine after that!
 

Fallen_Angel

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
33
FutureTaoiseach said:
I disagree with IONA. I agree that children should have a mother and father in their lives though, but I feel that this news is nonetheless a reminder that a radical minority in the gay community, by insisting on the extension of straight-marriage rights and benefits related to parenting, are inadvertently providing the Religious Right with 'ammunition' against gay partnership rights including marriage. Most of my gay friends share my view that rearing children is for mothers and fathers. I support a form of gay partnership/marriage without involving child-rearing benefits/rights in it. Children need a mother and a father. Having 2 fathers would only lead to the children being mercilessly teased by other children. As a gay person myself I cannot be accused of homophobia in this regard. I resent how a few ultras in the gay community alienate the straight community by making unrealistic demands.

The idea about Equality is that it shouldn't matter if it's a gay couple or straight couple, but that the state recognises the relationship between 2 persons in a loving relationship and also gives them the right to have children (whether by adoption or by procreation) to raise a family just like everyone else. That's why the forthcoming Civil Union bill must also grant adoption rights to same-sex couples.


I am gay and proud, unlike some gay people on this forum, and I intend on adopting or even fostering in a couple of years when I'm 30. I would love to be given the priviledge of raising a kid and providing the love and support that I can give them. If in a couple of years time, I was in a long relationship, then I would definitely consider joint adoption.
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
12,136
Unbeatable South Derry said:
I have no problem with gay marriage. You do your thing I couldn't care less. But where children are concerned its different. I could go into all sorts of reasons but heres the main 1. Does no one here remember what school was like? Where anybody who was different was picked on. Primary school isn't too bad but imagine after that!
I was different than the other kids - better looking, smarter, wittier, more learned and a much better vocabularly (than most of the teachers as well) and so forth and I did alright thank you jack....

Oh did I also mention I was the most modest child you could ever meet? My modesty was the stuff of legends, there was none so modest as me.....
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Fallen_Angel said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
I disagree with IONA. I agree that children should have a mother and father in their lives though, but I feel that this news is nonetheless a reminder that a radical minority in the gay community, by insisting on the extension of straight-marriage rights and benefits related to parenting, are inadvertently providing the Religious Right with 'ammunition' against gay partnership rights including marriage. Most of my gay friends share my view that rearing children is for mothers and fathers. I support a form of gay partnership/marriage without involving child-rearing benefits/rights in it. Children need a mother and a father. Having 2 fathers would only lead to the children being mercilessly teased by other children. As a gay person myself I cannot be accused of homophobia in this regard. I resent how a few ultras in the gay community alienate the straight community by making unrealistic demands.

The idea about Equality is that it shouldn't matter if it's a gay couple or straight couple, but that the state recognises the relationship between 2 persons in a loving relationship and also gives them the right to have children (whether by adoption or by procreation) to raise a family just like everyone else. That's why the forthcoming Civil Union bill must also grant adoption rights to same-sex couples.


I am gay and proud, unlike some gay people on this forum, and I intend on adopting or even fostering in a couple of years when I'm 30. I would love to be given the priviledge of raising a kid and providing the love and support that I can give them. If in a couple of years time, I was in a long relationship, then I would definitely consider joint adoption.
The rights of the child to a mother and father have to come first and foremost as far as I am concerned. Most children prefer to confide in a mother and depriving them of a mother could result in them bottling up problems instead of being willing to discuss them with a parent.
 

popper

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
297
The OD said:
[quote="Unbeatable South Derry":1cydtoif]I have no problem with gay marriage. You do your thing I couldn't care less. But where children are concerned its different. I could go into all sorts of reasons but heres the main 1. Does no one here remember what school was like? Where anybody who was different was picked on. Primary school isn't too bad but imagine after that!
I was different than the other kids - better looking, smarter, wittier, more learned and a much better vocabularly (than most of the teachers as well) and so forth and I did alright thank you jack....

Oh did I also mention I was the most modest child you could ever meet? My modesty was the stuff of legends, there was none so modest as me.....[/quote:1cydtoif]


You don't have to pretend to us that you are tiresome ;)
 

returning officer

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
139
...and what of the right of the child to be adopted?
If it was choice between a drug-using single mother or a stable same-sex couple, which is better?

Adoption is one part of the Civil Partnership/Equality in Marriage argument. It is not the bee all and end all of it (contrary to Pinko Liberals or Right wing bigots). To change teh current adoption law viz-a-viz a gay persons to a gay couple, does not require much, as its stands a gay person can adopt a child, what will be provided will be that his/her partner can also apply at the same time (or afterwards). In order to do that, the relationship has to be recognised by the State. One can chose to bring that about that by legislation, with the heads of bill in the next few weeks or a pipedream fo equality in marriage by a referendum.

However the adoption issue is used as an emotional weapons by both sets of extremists.
 

solair

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
41
Why can't some people see beyond their own nose on this issue?

A % of the population are gay, that's a given. Why can't they get married?!

What's the big deal?!

It's about time that they let gay people have some sense of stability in their lives and proper rights to have their relationships legally recognised.

Not giving them this right is discrimination pure and simple.
 

Fallen_Angel

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
33
Unbeatable South Derry said:
I have no problem with gay marriage. You do your thing I couldn't care less. But where children are concerned its different. I could go into all sorts of reasons but heres the main 1. Does no one here remember what school was like? Where anybody who was different was picked on. Primary school isn't too bad but imagine after that!
One if you haven't figured out by now, most of the guys(bullies) in school who went around calling people "gay" were usually gay themselves, that's why there needs to be a more "inclusive" policy in schools that says "it's cool to be gay" etc. That's the way forward and the Catholic schools would also have to get stuck in a put aside their prejudices about "gays" also if something like that was to work :)


The Gay Civil Union bill in the UK grants adoption rights to same-sex couples as well. That's where we should be at now, but we're still stuck on just recognising that gay couples do have rights while countries like Eastern countries like Croatia and Hungary are ahead of us on recognising the rights of gay couples. That's why the Irish Civil Union bill must go one step further and grant adoption right as well.
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
12,136
popper said:
The OD said:
[quote="Unbeatable South Derry":r2srpxsy]I have no problem with gay marriage. You do your thing I couldn't care less. But where children are concerned its different. I could go into all sorts of reasons but heres the main 1. Does no one here remember what school was like? Where anybody who was different was picked on. Primary school isn't too bad but imagine after that!
I was different than the other kids - better looking, smarter, wittier, more learned and a much better vocabularly (than most of the teachers as well) and so forth and I did alright thank you jack....

Oh did I also mention I was the most modest child you could ever meet? My modesty was the stuff of legends, there was none so modest as me.....

You don't have to pretend to us that you are tiresome ;)[/quote:r2srpxsy]

I should have put an ;) at the end of that really.

My bad.

:oops:
 

gosimeon

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
20
David Cochrane said:
Sorry guys, but this isn't a stupid debate about brothers and sisters getting married, adopting or any other ridiculous nonsense. Get a grip, and stay on topic.
Perhaps you should try not moaning in every thread on this site. :roll:

I think that both sides are entitled to their opinion. It would be interesting to see how a referendum on the issue would play out. The civil union bill will not be met with any main-stream protest however, thankfully.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
6
Fallen_Angel said:
One if you haven't figured out by now, most of the guys(bullies) in school who went around calling people "gay" were usually gay themselves, that's why there needs to be a more "inclusive" policy in schools that says "it's cool to be gay" etc. That's the way forward and the Catholic schools would also have to get stuck in a put aside their prejudices about "gays" also if something like that was to work :)
Thats news to me! That must mean basically every boy in my school was gay. I don't know what your school was like but at ours anyone who was different was basically never left alone. And at my school anyone playing in the school hurling and football teams could basically do as they pleased (and we did). Anyone with no interest in sport gay, anyone who spent must of his time with the girls gay, anyone who spoke or acted a certain way gay, even the subjects you chose could mark you down. Any way it doesn't really matter who turned out to be gay or not what does matter is the never-ending abuse you can take in school. So in my school if anyone had have been brought up by a same-sex couple we would basically have destroyed their life. Is that what anyone wants for a child?
 


New Threads

Top Bottom