Gay marriage

[armaghniac]

This thread has developed along predictable lines. People are "homophobes", have "stereotypes" and even Hitler has been invoked. Like other threads these expressions are introduced to prevent actual discussion, to put forward the view that one side is intrinsically right and and any objection to them intrinsically malign. We've had the EGs of this world deriding any vaguely nationalist sentiment as "anti-British" and "MOPEry"i others claiming that any objection to Isreal casually killing Palestinians as "anti-semitic"

I do not believe that blind people should be allowed fly aeroplanes, this does not make me a blindophobe. I believe that hetrosexual couples are a natural environment for child raising and that, where possible, this arrangement should be preferred over single people, homosexuals couples, menage a trois, Morman style polygamy and other setups.If there is the least possibility that I am right then the government must act in the interests of the child and ensure that regular couples get preference.  I absolutely expect the government to discriminate in adoption, I expect them to make the best arrangements for the child. Equal treatment of adults in this regard is not the point. An agenda which has to do with adults proving a point should absolutely not be entertained by adoption agencies or government.

We don't exercise control over the organic construction of families and every citizen has an equal right in this regard, however badly some neglect their responsibilities. Adoption is by its nature a more deliberate process.

[Eamonnca1]

Some people are missing the point. The varying standards of parenting in society is irrelevant - when is a single parent/abusive/alcoholic etc ever going to apply to adopt a child? And in what country would they even be allowed to!?!

What it all boils down to is what provides the best environment for a adopted child to grow up in and IMO that is one where there is a loving mother and father.

On what grounds do you put gays in the same bracket as alcoholics and abusers?

In any case there is no law against alcoholics or violent people from having children.

[EC Unique]

This thread has developed along predictable lines. People are "homophobes", have "stereotypes" and even Hitler has been invoked. Like other threads these expressions are introduced to prevent actual discussion, to put forward the view that one side is intrinsically right and and any objection to them intrinsically malign. We've had the EGs of this world deriding any vaguely nationalist sentiment as "anti-British" and "MOPEry"i others claiming that any objection to Isreal casually killing Palestinians as "anti-semitic"

I do not believe that blind people should be allowed fly aeroplanes, this does not make me a blindophobe. I believe that hetrosexual couples are a natural environment for child raising and that, where possible, this arrangement should be preferred over single people, homosexuals couples, menage a trois, Morman style polygamy and other setups.If there is the least possibility that I am right then the government must act in the interests of the child and ensure that regular couples get preference.  I absolutely expect the government to discriminate in adoption, I expect them to make the best arrangements for the child. Equal treatment of adults in this regard is not the point. An agenda which has to do with adults proving a point should absolutely not be entertained by adoption agencies or government.

We don't exercise control over the organic construction of families and every citizen has an equal right in this regard, however badly some neglect their responsibilities. Adoption is by its nature a more deliberate process.

Excellent post.

[EC Unique]

I tink dat gay weding shud not happen. It shud b between man n'd women only!

I tink dat u wil b a gr8 addishun 2 da brd.

Don't think too many will fall for this one. Fail.

[Maguire01]

I do not believe that blind people should be allowed fly aeroplanes, this does not make me a blindophobe.

I'd imagine there's a significant body of evidence to suggest that blind people could not safely fly a plane and that by flying a plane, they would endanger the lives of others.

I believe that hetrosexual couples are a natural environment for child raising and that, where possible, this arrangement should be preferred over single people, homosexuals couples, menage a trois, Morman style polygamy and other setups.If there is the least possibility that I am right then the government must act in the interests of the child and ensure that regular couples get preference.

So government policy should be based on there being the 'least possibility that you are right'? Really? What is there's a small possibility that you're right, but a significant probability that you're wrong?

I absolutely expect the government to discriminate in adoption, I expect them to make the best arrangements for the child. 

I do to. I expect them to discriminate in order to place the child in a safe, stable and loving home.

Equal treatment of adults in this regard is not the point. An agenda which has to do with adults proving a point should absolutely not be entertained by adoption agencies or government.

That argument is based on the equal treatment of adults being to the detriment of children. There's no evidence that this is the case.
And the fact that you think this is about proving a point... you actually think gay people adopt or want to adopt children to prove a point?

[armaghniac]

And the fact that you think this is about proving a point... you actually think gay people adopt or want to adopt children to prove a point?

No. But some of the people agitating about their right to adopt are trying to prove a point.

So what about single-parent families where either the mother or father is missing completely (death, out of life completely etc.) does the same apply?

Single parent families often do great. But you wouldn't deliberately create one.
Families of only one gender often do great. But you wouldn't deliberately create one.

[seafoid]

What about wife beaters ? Should they be allowed to have children or should they be sterilised ?

[Eamonnca1]

This thread reminds me of the "don't ask don't tell" debate in America. The right kept repeating this canard over and over again that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would "undermine military cohesion." Nobody was able to expand on that and cite any examples of military cohesion being undermined in other countries where gays can serve openly in the military without discrimination.

Likewise on this topic the canard being repeated is that gays are somehow inherently inferior parents compared to straight people. Nobody has provided any evidence to back up this preposterous claim. BTW, have any of you watched the YouTube link I posted a few pages ago? Please do. It's a first hand account of what it's like to be raised by gay parents. You might learn something.

[Eamonnca1]

Damned if I know how it got locked but apparently I'm able to unlock it.

Carry on...

[J70]

Grand stuff... I deleted the other one.

[J70]

Chistians are being forced to go against their belief systems.
Christian organisations are being forced to facilitate gay adoption, they are being forced to provide contraceptive and abortive medication to employees.
These instances and cases are what I have a problem with and this is where I would ask for exceptions to the law.....

Play me the world's smallest violin. Nobody puts a gun the the heads of these organizations and forces them to get into the business of providing social services or take on employees. If you can't provide social services without using your belief system as a means to discriminate against a vulnerable minority, or can't employ people without meeting your obligations to them, then you should not be in the business of providing social services or employing people.

Yet when other people come back and remove the word Religion or Church and replace it with homosexual or whatever, you're all in uproar.
You can't call anyone a discriminate surely and then discriminate yourself in the next sentence?

Heganboy nobody called anyone a whack job.

It's ok for gay people to stand up for their rights. But not ok for Christians to stand up for theirs.
Nobody is putting a gun to any Gay person's head and telling them to get "married" or to adopt kids.

You can't have it both ways but it sounds like a lot of you's maybe would like to......

What christian rights are you talking about? What are they losing? The right to discriminate others? Preventing that is infringing on christian rights?

And who is complaining about people forcing gay people to get married or adopt kids? Its people who want to stop them getting married or adopting kids that are the problem. Those are actually real rights that people like you want to deny.

Gay people want to gain something at no one's expense. Christians (and other religious people) want to deny someone something that has no impact on christians or anyone else.

[J70]

It is obvious that people have strong views on this and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Nobody, especially on an Internet forum, will sway me on the view that a child is better off in a house with a mother and father than a house with a gay couple assuming that both houses are of equal standing in terms of a good, loving environment. That is my strongly held beliief and I will take it to my grave.

How very open-minded and intellectually honest of you EC!

[J70]

This thread has developed along predictable lines. People are "homophobes", have "stereotypes" and even Hitler has been invoked. Like other threads these expressions are introduced to prevent actual discussion, to put forward the view that one side is intrinsically right and and any objection to them intrinsically malign. We've had the EGs of this world deriding any vaguely nationalist sentiment as "anti-British" and "MOPEry"i others claiming that any objection to Isreal casually killing Palestinians as "anti-semitic"

I do not believe that blind people should be allowed fly aeroplanes, this does not make me a blindophobe. I believe that hetrosexual couples are a natural environment for child raising and that, where possible, this arrangement should be preferred over single people, homosexuals couples, menage a trois, Morman style polygamy and other setups.If there is the least possibility that I am right then the government must act in the interests of the child and ensure that regular couples get preference.  I absolutely expect the government to discriminate in adoption, I expect them to make the best arrangements for the child. Equal treatment of adults in this regard is not the point. An agenda which has to do with adults proving a point should absolutely not be entertained by adoption agencies or government.

We don't exercise control over the organic construction of families and every citizen has an equal right in this regard, however badly some neglect their responsibilities. Adoption is by its nature a more deliberate process.

The least possibility? By that standard there should be no adoption by anyone anywhere. There is always a possibility that the prospective father will turn out to be an alcoholic or an abuser or a gambler.

And equal treatment is exactly the point. Why should someone be denied the chance to be a loving, capable parent because someone who can't get over themselves doesn't approve of his or her sexual leaning, something which is entirely not their choice?

[Eamonnca1]

I think Iceman is complaining about losing the 'right'  to flout the law because it contradicts his religious beliefs.

[Mayo4Sam]

Fionntamhnach would you say that someone whose dad dies when they are young is less likely to be involved or even interested in football?