Step in the right direction for equality yesterday from the 9th circuit court of appeals. But what will the Supreme Court make of Prop 8?
I await the chorus of conservative howling about "judicial activism" in 5-4-3-2-1-
Not sure about the legal technicalities and how the current supreme court will rule (the Citizens United decision is really showing their wisdom this year) and the implications for other states, but the idea that something like marriage rights should be subject to popular vote is just ridiculous. The only argument against it is that it offends some people's religious sensibilities, which is no basis whatsoever for prohibiting it.
Gay marriage is fine, what ever they want themselves is no bother. As long as they can not adopt children.
So will you be the Husband or the wife Eamonn and when's the big day?
Do you know any gay couples with adopted children EC? Have you any rationale for suggesting that a gay couple cannot adopt a child? Is it just adoption? Can they use invitro fertilization or third parties to become parents - or does that fall into an area of concern for you?
Is what you are actually saying, and I'm paraphrasing here so bear with me 'Gay people should not be allowed to raise children'?
Clearly Puckoon they're unfit parents cause there's something wrong with them :-\
Maybe EC is afraid they'll catch the gay?
It's people and comments like EC that are the problem, thinking they are all liberal but basically with a different stereotype.
Why wouldn't they be allowed adopt? Surely it's whether two (or one or three for that matter) people will provide a loving and stable home for the child?
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
Gay marriage is fine, what ever they want themselves is no bother. As long as they can not adopt children.
Gay couples should have as much right as anyone else to adopt as long as they can provide the same stability and support as any other couple.
What reason would there be for preventing it?
Quote from: heganboy on February 09, 2012, 02:58:20 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
As long as they can not adopt children.
eh, Why?
Just does not rest easy with me. A traditional mother and father parentage is more suitable in my opinion. Just my opinion by the way so don't all get in a wee hissy fit about it.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. It is however an ignorant and ill informed one.
Quote from: Puckoon on February 09, 2012, 03:35:07 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. It is however an ignorant and ill informed one.
That, sir, is your opinion and not fact.
I'm sure I'm not on my own here but doubt if many will voice agreement.
QuoteIt is however an ignorant and ill informed one.
I don't think you can condemn another poster as ignorant and uninformed because you disagree with him. This is behaviour ignorant of manners.
Children in the normal run of things arise from normal couples. Where they need to be adopted they should in general be adopted by similar couples. Of course if there is a war or something and lots of orphans then all sorts of configurations of caring adults can play a role, but in a normal situation then normal arrangements should apply and there is little need for social experimentation on children when normal couples are available.
In the grand scheme of things I don't agree with it either.
Many people will have "informed" opinions based on their personal experiences with Gay couples and Gay parents and that's fine, be those positive or negative.
I don't feel the need to justify my reasons why or why not but I did feel the need to state my opinion.
Eamonn I wish you all the best
If your rationale is simply it just does not sit easy with you - then it is more fact than my opinion that your opinion is ignorant and ill informed.
If you have specific reasons, or examples which outline why Gay people make bad parents then your opinon might begin to carry some substantiation. As it stands currently it's just a dumb, ignorant one.
I too am sure you are not on your own here, a homophobic culture still exists in many people. At least you have the convitction to display your bigotry for all to see.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 03:43:18 PM
QuoteIt is however an ignorant and ill informed one.
I don't think you can condemn another poster as ignorant and uninformed because you disagree with him. This is behaviour ignorant of manners.
The issue is not disagreement - the issue is that "it does not sit easy with me" is zero rationale for discriminating against another human being on the basis of the sexual orientation as an obstacle to their suitability for parenthood.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 03:43:18 PM
.
Children in the normal run of things arise from normal couples. Where they need to be adopted they should in general be adopted by similar couples. Of course if there is a war or something and lots of orphans then all sorts of configurations of caring adults can play a role, but in a normal situation then normal arrangements should apply and there is little need for social experimentation on children when normal couples are available.
+1 except I'd use "male and female" couples instead of the word "normal" .
I know some male and female couples who are far from what I'd consider normal :D
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 02:57:52 PM
So will you be the Husband or the wife Eamonn and when's the big day?
Says the man who doesn't like pussies ;D
Quote from: Puckoon on February 09, 2012, 03:51:20 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 03:43:18 PM
QuoteIt is however an ignorant and ill informed one.
I don't think you can condemn another poster as ignorant and uninformed because you disagree with him. This is behaviour ignorant of manners.
The issue is not disagreement - the issue is that "it does not sit easy with me" is zero rationale for discriminating against another human being on the basis of the sexual orientation as an obstacle to their suitability for parenthood.
Well said. Society should not be run based on placating bigotry and prejudice, however sincerely held or religious based. If there is a rational argument for discrimination against gays, then let the proponents outlines it.
And how is it "bad manners" to condemn prejudice?
Quote from: Puckoon on February 09, 2012, 03:48:39 PM
If your rationale is simply it just does not sit easy with you - then it is more fact than my opinion that your opinion is ignorant and ill informed.
If you have specific reasons, or examples which outline why Gay people make bad parents then your opinon might begin to carry some substantiation. As it stands currently it's just a dumb, ignorant one.
I too am sure you are not on your own here, a homophobic culture still exists in many people. At least you have the convitction to display your bigotry for all to see.
I also stated that a traditional mother and father partnership, in my opinion, is more suitable. But don't let that get in the way of your little rant.
If thinking a gay couple are less suitable to bringing up children than a traditional male female couple makes me homophobic then so be it. I have no problem with that.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 03:43:18 PM
Children in the normal run of things arise from normal couples. Where they need to be adopted they should in general be adopted by similar couples. Of course if there is a war or something and lots of orphans then all sorts of configurations of caring adults can play a role, but in a normal situation then normal arrangements should apply and there is little need for social experimentation on children when normal couples are available.
Are we talking about natural procreation here, or parenting? Anyone (barring the infertile) has the ability to become a mother, or father. That is to say they can create life. Not everyone, including "normal heterosexual couples" (shock horror!!) has the ability to parent a child to adulthood. The ability to parent and love a child, to help them grow into a successful young adult is neither present in heterosexual people, nor absent in homosexual people as some kind of a default setting.
The argument of "normalcy" existing solely in heterosexual sets of parents and heterosexual (traditional) homes is baseless.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
Gay marriage is fine, what ever they want themselves is no bother. As long as they can not adopt children.
so, you're a racist who is against gay couples rearing a child....do you own a few shotguns, have a pick-up truck and a wife going by the name of Darlene?
I am against Gay people adopting because it could lead to bullying of the child in later life.
IMO one of the fundamental aspects of adoption is giving the child a loving mother and father. It is not fair for a child to be adopted by either two men or two women and thus be deprived of a loving father/mother figure in their childhood.
If that makes me ignorant and intolerant then that's what I am.
It's sad to say even in these times deeply religious people will never accept gay marriage or there right to parenthood.
Quote from: J OGorman on February 09, 2012, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
Gay marriage is fine, what ever they want themselves is no bother. As long as they can not adopt children.
so, you're a racist who is against gay couples rearing a child....do you own a few shotguns, have a pick-up truck and a wife going by the name of Darlene?
You don't see the irony in that post, do you?
Quote from: Hardy on February 09, 2012, 04:12:38 PM
Quote from: J OGorman on February 09, 2012, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
Gay marriage is fine, what ever they want themselves is no bother. As long as they can not adopt children.
so, you're a racist who is against gay couples rearing a child....do you own a few shotguns, have a pick-up truck and a wife going by the name of Darlene?
You don't see the irony in that post, do you?
indeed, was trying to get down to a certain tongue in cheek level to be understood
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 04:03:22 PM
I am against Gay people adopting because it could lead to bullying of the child in later life.
IMO one of the fundamental aspects of adoption is giving the child a loving mother and father. It is not fair for a child to be adopted by either two men or two women and thus be deprived of a loving father/mother figure in their childhood.
If that makes me ignorant and intolerant then that's what I am.
By that rationale we should abolish immigration and the adoption of chinese and romanian orphans. Sure those kids will be subject to bullying by ignorant children learning their bigotry at their parents' knees as well.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 04:03:22 PM
I am against Gay people adopting because it could lead to bullying of the child in later life.
IMO one of the fundamental aspects of adoption is giving the child a loving mother and father. It is not fair for a child to be adopted by either two men or two women and thus be deprived of a loving father/mother figure in their childhood.
If that makes me ignorant and intolerant then that's what I am.
If they child is bullied in later life because of his gay adoptive parents, what does that say about the loving mother and father that raised the child the that's the bully and the upbringing they had.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 04:03:22 PM
IMO one of the fundamental aspects of adoption is giving the child a loving mother and father. It is not fair for a child to be adopted by either two men or two women and thus be deprived of a loving father/mother figure in their childhood.
Gay couples don't live all by themselves. They have an extended familiy which will hopefully provide good Male/Female role models.
A what about people who lose a Parent
Quoteand thus be deprived of a loving father/mother figure in their childhood.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 04:03:22 PM
I am against Gay people adopting because it could lead to bullying of the child in later life.
IMO one of the fundamental aspects of adoption is giving the child a loving mother and father. It is not fair for a child to be adopted by either two men or two women and thus be deprived of a loving father/mother figure in their childhood.
If that makes me ignorant and intolerant then that's what I am.
There's reason in this post, at least.
Bullying - that is a good point. It is a point though that says more about our culture than it says about the ability of gay people to raise a child. Where do we draw the line on those who might be bullied? Red haired couples, indian couples, hairy couples that might have a young girl that needs her lip waxed from the age of 14? Couples who won't pay enough attention to their kids hygeine? I know, I know - I'm getting ridiculous... right?
Regarding the second point - children up for adoption are often times deprived of the love of a mother and father before they are even born. Children need love - lots of it. It comes in many different forms and cannot be discounted because on the outisde it does not match societies definition (outdated) of normal.
We shouldn't judge based on our own ignorance. That is a bigger societal problem.
There are plenty of married couples where one of the parents is gay anyway so it does happen.
The facets required for becoming parents and being parents are different - there is nothing inherent in homosexuality that would preclude gay people from being adequate parents, any more than heterosexual people.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2012, 04:33:56 PM
There are plenty of married couples where one of the parents is gay anyway so it does happen.
That does not make it right.
It is a tricky matter that people will have strong opinions on. As far as I know it is still illegal in Ireland for a gay couple to adopt children. Long may that remain the case...
What about Catholic and Christian Charities who are being forced to go against their beliefs to accept gay adoption?
Is it right in those cases to force opinion on an institution or charity?
IM - What do you mean? What "Christian" organizations are being forced to go against their beliefs to accept gay adoption? I don't understand your question.
Some ridiculous comments on this thread. How do you define normal? And how many families are normal? Would a single parent be better than a gay couple? Or what about a 'normal' couple where one of the parents is a drunk, a junkie, or an abuser?
As for the bullying argument... well as Puckoon said, children get bullied for a multitude of reasons. Maybe their parents are poor and can't afford to keep up with the latest trends - should that be a reason to stop them being parents? Should the narrow mindedness of other people be a deciding factor?
And if children are getting bullied by other children because their parents are a gay couple, it's because people (like those on here) with such opinions are passing those same opinions on to their own children.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 04:45:28 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2012, 04:33:56 PM
There are plenty of married couples where one of the parents is gay anyway so it does happen.
That does not make it right.
It is a tricky matter that people will have strong opinions on. As far as I know it is still illegal in Ireland for a gay couple to adopt children. Long may that remain the case...
There's nothing tricky about it.
Your view appears to be firmly held, so it should be easy enough to outline your case against gay adoption.
Christian based adoption agencies throughout America and throughout the UK like Catholic Care are being forced by the Government to comply with recently passed legislation to allow same sex couples to adopt children from their agencies. Even though this directly conflicts with their religious opinion, practice and code.
These agencies have been forced to close in many cases. These instances go back to 2007 in England when Catholic Care clashed with the government on this very issue. The Government insisted that if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide gay adoption services.
There are agencies who provide and cater for gay adoption. I don't have to agree with them. But at the same time Christian based charities who provide services should not be forced surely down that road?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 04:47:57 PM
What about Catholic and Christian Charities who are being forced to go against their beliefs to accept gay adoption?
Is it right in those cases to force opinion on an institution or charity?
I would think that as long as they're not getting public funding for their activities there should not be a problem.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 04:03:22 PM
IMO one of the fundamental aspects of adoption is giving the child a loving mother and father. It is not fair for a child to be adopted by either two men or two women and thus be deprived of a loving father/mother figure in their childhood.
So what about single parent families? Is that unfair? What should be done about such children?
IM - J70 beat me to it - if public funds are being poured into the coffers of the charities - then they should abide by the laws of the state/country. If the catholic church received money in California, from the state of California - it should be required to perform gay marriages. As it does not - the catholic church can refuse to perform gay marriages on the basis of it's belief system.
What if they are not receiving funds? State law is state law and country law is country law.
Should they still be forced to against their beliefs?
Should religion be above the law Iceman?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 04:47:57 PM
What about Catholic and Christian Charities who are being forced to go against their beliefs to accept gay adoption?
Is it right in those cases to force opinion on an institution or charity?
In the US the law states that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, that includes suitability for adoptive parents. Church charities who are apparently quite active in the adoption facilitation process are asking that they be exempt as it goes against their "principles"
Additionally churches in the US also "direct" parishioners to vote based on candidates position on Roe vs Wade, (which is the case law that allows abortion). However no such direction is provided on candidates who support the death penalty.
This is an email that I got a couple of weeks back, forwarded to all parents of my sons' school. It is about the new healthcare law that the universal church came out against as it would force them to cover abortion, sterilization and contraception. never mind that it would provide healthcare for the poor...
Quote
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in
the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of
any faith. The federal government, which claims to be "of, by, and for the people," has just dealt a heavy
blow to almost a quarter of those people-the Catholic population-and to the millions more who are
served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all
employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees' health coverage that
includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be
forced to include those "services" in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be
forced to buy that coverage as a part oftheir policies.
In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious
liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our
consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The
Administration's sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second
class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will
in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to
these shores to help build America's cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and
culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has
always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and
trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren
deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit
ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored.
Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend
visiting www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how
to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration's decision.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely in the Lord,
Most Rev John J Myers,
Archbishop of Newark
I have also received emails about gay marriage, I am awaiting emails any time now asking me to lobby against capital punishment, pollution, poor education systems, prison reform, tax etc etc.
I may be waiting for quite a wee while.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:14:24 PM
What if they are not receiving funds? State law is state law and country law is country law.
Should they still be forced to against their beliefs?
I don't think the receiving of public funds is that critical here. Should the law not apply to a religious organisation when they don't receive public funds?
Obviously not nifan
Thats why they are forced to withdraw services in these cases.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 05:19:45 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:14:24 PM
What if they are not receiving funds? State law is state law and country law is country law.
Should they still be forced to against their beliefs?
I don't think the receiving of public funds is that critical here. Should the law not apply to a religious organisation when they don't receive public funds?
Fair point. If it was based on race and not sexual orientation, then no one would give a bollocks about public funding.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:20:12 PM
Obviously not nifan
Thats why they are forced to withdraw services in these cases.
But
should they be? That was the question.
Those opposed to gays raising children should watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=related)
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 02:57:52 PM
So will you be the Husband or the wife Eamonn and when's the big day?
The day when you grow up, i.e. never.
Is it not contradictory to overlook the rights and opinions of Christians while fighting so hard for equal rights for others?
There has been a major shift to the point where Christians are now the minority and in some cases the outcasts.
Funny when yesteryear's minority became today's majority everyone stopped caring about the minority......and equal rights went out the window....
Only equal if it includes everyone's beliefs (apart from the Christians)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 09, 2012, 05:25:42 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 02:57:52 PM
So will you be the Husband or the wife Eamonn and when's the big day?
The day when you grow up, i.e. never.
Can you not recognize a bit of jesting? ;)
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2012, 04:33:56 PM
There are plenty of married couples where one of the parents is gay anyway so it does happen.
That's a brave admission. I hope you get the help you need.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:20:12 PM
Obviously not nifan
Thats why they are forced to withdraw services in these cases.
But should they be? That was the question.
Obviously not.
I thought i answered that clearly.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:25:50 PM
Is it not contradictory to overlook the rights and opinions of Christians while fighting so hard for equal rights for others?
There has been a major shift to the point where Christians are now the minority and in some cases the outcasts.
Funny when yesteryear's minority became today's majority everyone stopped caring about the minority......and equal rights went out the window....
Only equal if it includes everyone's beliefs (apart from the Christians)
But no one is asking Christians to be gay parents. Christians have a right to be straight.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:20:12 PM
Obviously not nifan
Thats why they are forced to withdraw services in these cases.
But should they be? That was the question.
Obviously not.
I thought i answered that clearly.
But you had a problem with them being forced to comply with the law, no?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 09, 2012, 05:30:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 09, 2012, 04:33:56 PM
There are plenty of married couples where one of the parents is gay anyway so it does happen.
That's a brave admission. I hope you get the help you need.
Are you my new stalker?? I like the attention but you are not my type :-*
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:25:50 PM
Is it not contradictory to overlook the rights and opinions of Christians while fighting so hard for equal rights for others?
There has been a major shift to the point where Christians are now the minority and in some cases the outcasts.
Funny when yesteryear's minority became today's majority everyone stopped caring about the minority......and equal rights went out the window....
Only equal if it includes everyone's beliefs (apart from the Christians)
And good ol' boy racists from Dixie are (hopefully) in the minority and, indeed, outcasts. I don't grieve for their loss of dominance either. If you're left behind, stuck in views that the rest of society has rightly dismissed as prejudiced and no longer defensible, then you can't really expect much respect or sympathy.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:20:12 PM
Obviously not nifan
Thats why they are forced to withdraw services in these cases.
But should they be? That was the question.
Obviously not.
I thought i answered that clearly.
But you had a problem with them being forced to comply with the law, no?
I have a problem with the law not giving religious organisations any exceptions based on their beliefs.
Like if the N.I government mandated that a Union Jack be flown at all playing fields for example.
Live and let live lads... ???
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:44:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:20:12 PM
Obviously not nifan
Thats why they are forced to withdraw services in these cases.
But should they be? That was the question.
Obviously not.
I thought i answered that clearly.
But you had a problem with them being forced to comply with the law, no?
I have a problem with the law not giving religious organisations any exceptions based on their beliefs.
Like if the N.I government mandated that a Union Jack be flown at all playing fields for example.
I'm not sure I understand your analogy.
And to what extent do you think religious beliefs should be exempt from the law?
Quote from: sammymaguire on February 09, 2012, 05:49:44 PM
Live and let live lads... ???
I agree.
Which is why I advocate that gay people get the same rights and priveleges as straight people.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 05:25:50 PM
Is it not contradictory to overlook the rights and opinions of Christians while fighting so hard for equal rights for others?
There has been a major shift to the point where Christians are now the minority and in some cases the outcasts.
Funny when yesteryear's minority became today's majority everyone stopped caring about the minority......and equal rights went out the window....
Only equal if it includes everyone's beliefs (apart from the Christians)
What rights are christians denied that other people are afforded?
Christians are covered by equality legislation and many people have used it on these grounds.
You can have your opinion on gays rights to marry, adopt etc. but that should not adictate law.
Similarly many atheists look at the negative aspects of organised religion, but they may not simply make it illegal. Nobody proposes that christian parents shouldnt be allowed to adopt for example.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 03:31:35 PM
Quote from: heganboy on February 09, 2012, 02:58:20 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
As long as they can not adopt children.
eh, Why?
Just does not rest easy with me. A traditional mother and father parentage is more suitable in my opinion. Just my opinion by the way so don't all get in a wee hissy fit about it.
EC, given your avatar what would you say if I said I wasn't happy with a black couple adopting a white child, that it just didn't sit well with me?
The arguments on here are laughable, lads have no doubt about it this is just as bad as discrimination over colour, religion, any other arbitrary excuse for discrimination.
By the rationale here:
- Kids whose lose a parent are raised incorrectly, worse than if they had two daddies?
- Kids who anyway can be bullied are out too, so anyone geeky kid with buck teeth, big ears, etc
It's beginning to sound a bit like Hitlers vision
Quote from: Mayo4Sam on February 09, 2012, 03:14:07 PM
Clearly Puckoon they're unfit parents cause there's something wrong with them :-\
Maybe EC is afraid they'll catch the gay?
It's people and comments like EC that are the problem, thinking they are all liberal but basically with a different stereotype.
Why wouldn't they be allowed adopt? Surely it's whether two (or one or three for that matter) people will provide a loving and stable home for the child?
Hilarious :D
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.....
Doesn't Chistians change there belief systems as they go along?
Then perhaps Christian organizations shouldn't get involved in a la carte charity work where their belief systems* are compromised.
Belief system being Family A deserve help, Family B do not.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
Chistians are being forced to go against their belief systems.
So regardless of how 'off the wall' your belief system is, it should be accommodated?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 06:39:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
Chistians are being forced to go against their belief systems.
So regardless of how 'off the wall' your belief system is, it should be accommodated?
Thats the way the world seems to be going, yes.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:44:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 06:39:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
Chistians are being forced to go against their belief systems.
So regardless of how 'off the wall' your belief system is, it should be accommodated?
Thats the way the world seems to be going, yes.
Eh, no. What if your belief system is that black people, or women are inferior?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 06:52:00 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:44:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 06:39:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
Chistians are being forced to go against their belief systems.
So regardless of how 'off the wall' your belief system is, it should be accommodated?
Thats the way the world seems to be going, yes.
Eh, no. What if your belief system is that black people, or women are inferior?
You miss my point Maguire.
Two men being married and adopting kids surely could be considered "off the wall" but it's accommodated......
Two men and one woman all being married to each other and sexually active with each other and living in an open relationship at the same time surely could be considered "off the wall" but it is accommodated......
Are they being forced to facilitate gay adoptions?
On the health insurance thing, where do you draw the line if you allow catholic hospitals etc to withold birth control? If I work for a Jehivah's witness-owned company, can they omit blood transfusions from my health plan?
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.
the religious exemption is in the papers in the US today:
from the NY Times
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/whose-conscience/
QuoteIn the escalating conflict over the new federal requirement that employers include contraception coverage without a co-pay in the insurance plans they make available to their employees, opposition from the Catholic church and its allies is making headway with a powerfully appealing claim: that when conscience and government policy collide, conscience must prevail.
The rhetoric in which this claim is put forward grows more inflammatory by the day. "The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, 'To Hell with you!' " according to Bishop David A. Zubik of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nondenominational organization that litigates on behalf of religious interests, is circulating a petition under the heading: "The Obama Administration is giving you one year to stop believing" (a reference to the one-year delay the regulation offers to religious employers). Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, joined the chorus this week, calling the regulation "a violation of conscience."
This aggressive claiming of the moral high ground is close to drowning out the regulation's supporters, inside and outside of the Obama administration. Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen a comparably full-throated defense of the regulation, issued last month by the Department of Health and Human Services, except on pure policy grounds. (And there are indications this week that even some in the administration, or at least in President Obama's campaign apparatus, may be getting cold feet.) While the policy grounds are fully persuasive – the ability to prevent or space pregnancy being an essential part of women's health care, one that shouldn't be withheld simply because a woman's employer is church-affiliated – the purpose of this column is to examine the conscience claim itself, directly, to see whether it holds up.
An obvious starting point is with the 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women who, just like other American women, have exercised their own consciences and availed themselves of birth control at some point during their reproductive lives. So it's important to be clear that the conscientious objection to the regulation comes from an institution rather than from those whose consciences it purports to represent. (Catholic women actually have a higher rate of abortion than other American women, but I'll stick to birth control for now.) While most Catholics dissent in the privacy of their bedrooms from the church's position, some are pushing back in public. The organization Catholics for Choice, whose magazine is pointedly entitled Conscience, is calling on its supporters to "tell our local media that the bishops are out of touch with the lived reality of the Catholic people" and "do not speak for us on this decision."
But suppose the counter-factual – that only half, or one-quarter, or five percent of Catholic women use birth control. The question would remain: Whose conscience is it? The regulation doesn't require anyone to use birth control. It exempts any religious employer that primarily hires and serves its own faithful, the same exclusion offered by New York and California from the contraception mandate in state insurance laws. (Of the other states that require such coverage, 15 offer a broader opt-out provision, while eight provide no exemption at all.) Permitting Catholic hospitals to withhold contraception coverage from their 765,000 employees would blow a gaping hole in the regulation. The 629-hospital Catholic health care system is a major and respected health care provider, serving one in every six hospital patients and employing nearly 14 percent of all hospital staff in the country. Of the top 10 revenue-producing hospital systems in 2010, four were Catholic. The San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West, the fifth biggest hospital system in the country, had $11 billion in revenue last year and treated 6.2 million patients.
These institutions, as well as Catholic universities – not seminaries, but colleges and universities whose doors are open to all – are full participants in the public square, receiving a steady stream of federal dollars. They assert – indeed, have earned – the right to the same benefits that flow to their secular peers. What they now claim is a right to special treatment: to conscience that trumps law.
But in fact, that is not a principle that our legal system embraces. Just ask Alfred Smith and Galen Black, two members of the Native American Church who were fired from their state jobs in Oregon for using the illegal hallucinogen peyote in a religious ceremony and who were then deemed ineligible for unemployment compensation because they had lost their jobs for "misconduct." They argued that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion trumped the state's unemployment law.
In a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court disagreed. Even a sincere religious motivation, in the absence of some special circumstance like proof of government animus, does not merit exemption from a "valid and neutral law of general applicability," the court held. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion, which was joined by, among others, the notoriously left wing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
A broad coalition of conservative and progressive religious groups pushed back hard, leading to congressional passage of the tendentiously titled Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It provided that a free exercise claim would prevail unless the government could show a "compelling" reason for holding a religious group to the same legal requirements that applied to everyone else. After a Catholic church in Texas invoked that law in an effort to expand into a landmark zone where no new building was permitted, the Supreme Court declared the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional as applied to the states. The law remains in effect as applied to the federal government, although its full dimension remains untested.
Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday asserting that the contraception regulation violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it's not unlikely that one or more lawsuits may soon test that proposition. The question would then be whether the case for the mandate, without the broad exemption the church is demanding, is sufficiently "compelling." Such a case would pit the well-rehearsed public health arguments (half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those end in abortion – a case for expanded access to birth control if there ever was one ) against religious doctrine.
The court has recently been active on the religion front. In a unanimous decision last month, the justices for the first time recognized a constitutionally-based "ministerial exception" from laws concerning employment discrimination. An employee deemed by a church to be a "minister" – in this case, a kindergarten teacher in a Lutheran school who had received ministerial training and taught some religion classes – cannot sue the church over an adverse employment decision, the court held in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The plaintiff, supported by the federal government, had argued that the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision precluded the recognition of a ministerial exception from generally applicable employment laws. Rejecting that argument in his opinion for the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. explained: "But a church's selection of its ministers is unlike an individual's ingestion of peyote. Smith involved government regulation of only outward physical acts. The present case, in contrast, concerns government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself."
That language is certainly suggestive of deference, beyond the employment area, to a church's doctrinal claims to special treatment. But while all nine justices signed the opinion, that doesn't necessarily mean that all nine would agree on its application to the contraception requirement. The question would be whether a church that has failed to persuade its own flock of the rightness of its position could persuade at least five justices.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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.
What is your opinion based on?
Are there studies out there that show that children brought up by same-sex parents suffer in comparison to those brought up by heterosexual parents?
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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.
+1
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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.
Good post.
That would be the belief of thousands of people in Ireland alone. Are they all wrong. (or even ignorant and ill informed ::)).
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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!?!
You are also missing the point. There is no one stopping these people mentioned above from having children either. The debate appears to not centre around adoption - rather the suitability for gay people to raise children. Alcoholic and abusive parents are having children daily.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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.
Do you have any evidence (even anecdotal will do) to support the claim of the best environment? Do you know any gay parents of children, or have any examples of a heterosexual environment beating a homosexual environment in any specific ways? Or is this more unsubstantiated emotive opinon?
When opinions get thrown out in the course of debate - they are open to being challenged - and until there are any real reasons put forward then it's just nonsense.
Example: I think only black people should be allowed to adopt black children. I think people from Armagh should not be allowed to procreate. Etc etc etc. Nonsense. all of it. Just putting IMO at the end of any of these sentences should not protect me from criticism and being told my opinions are ignorant and bigotted.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 07:34:43 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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.
Good post.
That would be the belief of thousands of people in Ireland alone. Are they all wrong. (or even ignorant and ill informed ::)).
Yes. Just because thousands of people believe something doesn't mean it's right. Thousands of people in the UK vote for the BNP - i'd regard them as wrong, ignorant and ill informed.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 07:34:43 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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.
Good post.
That would be the belief of thousands of people in Ireland alone. Are they all wrong. (or even ignorant and ill informed ::)).
If they cannot porivde evidence that the children of same-sex couples thrive less than those of straight couples, yet propose to deny same-sex couples the right to adopt, then yes, absolutely they may well ignorant and ill informed.They certainly not coming to informed conclusions, that's for sure.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
You miss my point Maguire.
Two men being married and adopting kids surely could be considered "off the wall" but it's accommodated......
Two men and one woman all being married to each other and sexually active with each other and living in an open relationship at the same time surely could be considered "off the wall" but it is accommodated......
believing that a piece of unleavened bread is actually the body of a carpenter who lived 2000 years ago in the middle east but was really cunningly the deity who created the universe and made man in his image who decided that the one species he made is his own image should be allowed into eternal life of complete awesomeness if and only if when they die they have been sufficiently abiding of a set of very poorly translated rules and contradictory stories written down by a bunch of other men from the middle east that lived between 4000 and 1500 years ago. Otherwise they go to a state of absolute and unending hell (unless of course said omnipotent one decides on a whim to come back and end the world in which case the heaven criteria gets a lot tougher and only 7000 of the rule keepers get through the gates), with a few caveats to protect the rich who donate or who play the good old get out of jail free death bed confession card.
that on the other hand seems absolutely normal compared to the thought of two people of the same sex wanting to live together and provide a nurturing environment to bring up children, off the wall whack jobs...
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 09, 2012, 07:37:18 PM
We don't live in a perfect world, but there is no reason to try and not better it for everyone.
What a great philosophy, very well put. Unfortunately there are those among us who would prefer to practice exclusion, discrimination. preach bigotry and second class citizenship and then eat the altar rails on a Sunday.
Quote from: Puckoon on February 09, 2012, 07:34:50 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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!?!
You are also missing the point. There is no one stopping these people mentioned above from having children either. The debate appears to not centre around adoption - rather the suitability for gay people to raise children. Alcoholic and abusive parents are having children daily.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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.
Do you have any evidence (even anecdotal will do) to support the claim of the best environment? Do you know any gay parents of children, or have any examples of a heterosexual environment beating a homosexual environment in any specific ways? Or is this more unsubstantiated emotive opinon?
When opinions get thrown out in the course of debate - they are open to being challenged - and until there are any real reasons put forward then it's just nonsense.
Example: I think only black people should be allowed to adopt black children. I think people from Armagh should not be allowed to procreate. Etc etc etc. Nonsense. all of it. Just putting IMO at the end of any of these sentences should not protect me from criticism and being told my opinions are ignorant and bigotted.
You've been living in the US for too long. Personally if I was a chilfd growing up in Ireland I'd prefer for my pram to be pushed by a man wearing jeans and a t-shirt than one wearing a tanktop and leather chaps ;)
I have no idea on the figures in Ireland on the amount of children needing an adopted home but let's say it is less than the amount of couples looking for 2 or 3 children. If all these couples pass all the criteria to adopt and are offering a loving home then why should gay couples be considered when (again a guess) the majority of the population would not approve of gay couple adoption.
If there were not enough loving houses for the children then gay couple adoption could be looked at but I doubt if the figures call for it. Would not be an ideal solution but this is not an ideal world.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 07:49:34 PM
I have no idea on the figures in Ireland on the amount of children needing an adopted home but let's say it is less than the amount of couples looking for 2 or 3 children. If all these couples pass all the criteria to adopt and are offering a loving home then why should gay couples be considered when (again a guess) the majority of the population would not approve of gay couple adoption.
If there were not enough loving houses for the children then gay couple adoption could be looked at but I doubt if the figures call for it. Would not be an ideal solution but this is not an ideal world.
Let's say the majority of the population disapproved of black couples adopting white Irish children. Would it be ok in that case to prohibit black couples from adopting?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 09, 2012, 07:37:18 PM
Personally I feel that a child growing up in a "nuclear family" or an extension of this is usually the best for them as it helps them have both male and female influences through childhood and adolescence.
However this can't always happen. A husband/wife or even just man/woman living together raising their child may be for example within an abusive relationship that is often not healthy for children - intervention either by friends, family or an authority can often not be enough to solve this until on rare occasions its too late and turns tragic. The parents themselves could also be abusive to their children and very often they don't speak up with no one else noticing. Then you can give plenty of examples of single parent families raised nominally only by their mother or father and not both for whatever reasons. Again they can be missing an influence in their everyday life.
Because of these scenarios that has existed since time X, I can think of no real reason why homosexual couples should not be considered suitable for adopting a child especially if it can give the child safety, security and love. A someone else pointed out earlier, someones sexual orientation doesn't preclude them from being a good parent or be a positive social influence for them. Influences that would be potentially missing through the lack of one sex in this case can be compensated in various other ways e.g. help from family members, teachers, sports coaches etc. We don't live in a perfect world, but there is no reason to try and not better it for everyone. As for the element of religious influence, I would see it that if homosexuals were not to be deemed suitable as someone to raise children because their behaviour or design restricts them from having children naturally, then the same principle should apply to heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive naturally; that just happens to be God's will.
A lot of good points there. Basically a stable loving home, in whatever form that takes, will be in the best interests of the child.
gays should be allowed to get married... it will stop them having sex ;)
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 07:49:34 PM
I have no idea on the figures in Ireland on the amount of children needing an adopted home but let's say it is less than the amount of couples looking for 2 or 3 children. If all these couples pass all the criteria to adopt and are offering a loving home then why should gay couples be considered when (again a guess) the majority of the population would not approve of gay couple adoption.
If there were not enough loving houses for the children then gay couple adoption could be looked at but I doubt if the figures call for it. Would not be an ideal solution but this is not an ideal world.
How appropriate that it was you who mentioned the words 'ignorant' and 'ill informed'.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 07:49:34 PM
I have no idea on the figures in Ireland on the amount of children needing an adopted home but let's say it is less than the amount of couples looking for 2 or 3 children. If all these couples pass all the criteria to adopt and are offering a loving home then why should gay couples be considered when (again a guess) the majority of the population would not approve of gay couple adoption.
If there were not enough loving houses for the children then gay couple adoption could be looked at but I doubt if the figures call for it. Would not be an ideal solution but this is not an ideal world.
How appropriate that it was you who mentioned the words 'ignorant' and 'ill informed'.
It was puk that used those terms.
Do you think my assumptions are wrong?
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
Different isn't always a bad thing you know.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 07:49:34 PM
I have no idea on the figures in Ireland on the amount of children needing an adopted home but let's say it is less than the amount of couples looking for 2 or 3 children. If all these couples pass all the criteria to adopt and are offering a loving home then why should gay couples be considered when (again a guess) the majority of the population would not approve of gay couple adoption.
If there were not enough loving houses for the children then gay couple adoption could be looked at but I doubt if the figures call for it. Would not be an ideal solution but this is not an ideal world.
How appropriate that it was you who mentioned the words 'ignorant' and 'ill informed'.
It was puk that used those terms.
Do you think my assumptions are wrong?
I'm referring to this post.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 07:34:43 PM
That would be the belief of thousands of people in Ireland alone. Are they all wrong. (or even ignorant and ill informed ::)).
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
I do. I also think I would have turned out different if I had a different mother and father.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
I do. I also think I would have turned out different if I had a different mother and father.
:D
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
I do. I also think I would have turned out different if I had a different mother and father.
Elaberate. Do you think for example you would be in to GAA if you had two mothers or two fathers? Or sport at all for that matter?
I can't believe some of the things I'm reading to be honest.
As someone else posted already the main thing a child needs is love,there is no reason to believe in my mind that a Gay couple wouldn't give as much love to a child as a heterosexual couple would.
It's a long and expensive process to adopt a child,there is no way a couple would go through the process if they didn't have tons of love to give a child.
Plenty of kids grow up with one parent so any child that can have an opportunity to have two parents regardless of what sex they are will reap the benefits of that.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
I do. I also think I would have turned out different if I had a different mother and father.
Elaberate. Do you think for example you would be in to GAA if you had two mothers or two fathers? Or sport at all for that matter?
What the actual f**k?
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
I do. I also think I would have turned out different if I had a different mother and father.
Elaberate. Do you think for example you would be in to GAA if you had two mothers or two fathers? Or sport at all for that matter?
So no Gay people follow GAA or any other sport! Are you for real?
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
I do. I also think I would have turned out different if I had a different mother and father.
Elaberate. Do you think for example you would be in to GAA if you had two mothers or two fathers? Or sport at all for that matter?
Why not? In fact, my parents have little or no interest in sport. I went to GAA matches with my uncle. I played sport (badly) in school.
Are same-sex adoptions going to put the future of the GAA in jeopardy? :P
Wise up, I'm using GAA as (a poor) example.
What I mean is, how can two mothers compensate for the lack of a father? How can you compensate for that? How can a mother do father/son stuff? Play football in the park, first pint etc. She can't. Likewise how can two fathers provide for a mother role? They can't.
Quote from: Jonah on February 09, 2012, 08:17:20 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
I do. I also think I would have turned out different if I had a different mother and father.
Elaberate. Do you think for example you would be in to GAA if you had two mothers or two fathers? Or sport at all for that matter?
So no Gay people follow GAA or any other sport! Are you for real?
The depressing thing is, I think he is for real. He clearly has a gay stereotype in his head. And that stereotype is too busy listening to Gloria Gaynor to even contemplate sport.
Quote from: J70 on February 09, 2012, 08:21:03 PM
Are same-sex adoptions going to put the future of the GAA in jeopardy? :P
No, that's payments to managers and Tyrone.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:21:56 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 09, 2012, 08:17:20 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
I do. I also think I would have turned out different if I had a different mother and father.
Elaberate. Do you think for example you would be in to GAA if you had two mothers or two fathers? Or sport at all for that matter?
So no Gay people follow GAA or any other sport! Are you for real?
The depressing thing is, I think he is for real. He clearly has a gay stereotype in his head. And that stereotype is too busy listening to Gloria Gaynor to even contemplate sport.
I have no such stereotype. I am all for gay-rights bar this one matter.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:23:47 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:21:56 PM
Quote from: Jonah on February 09, 2012, 08:17:20 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:02:41 PM
How many of you think you would have turned out any different had you had two das or two mas?
I do. I also think I would have turned out different if I had a different mother and father.
Elaberate. Do you think for example you would be in to GAA if you had two mothers or two fathers? Or sport at all for that matter?
So no Gay people follow GAA or any other sport! Are you for real?
The depressing thing is, I think he is for real. He clearly has a gay stereotype in his head. And that stereotype is too busy listening to Gloria Gaynor to even contemplate sport.
I have no such stereotype. I am all for gay-rights bar this one matter.
So why do you assume you wouldn't be into sports if you had gay parents? What if one of your fathers was Gareth Thomas or Donal Óg Cusack?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
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.
I assumed nothing, I asked you a question which you didn't answer.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 09, 2012, 08:24:53 PM
Influences that would be potentially missing through the lack of one sex in this case can be compensated in various other ways e.g. help from family members, teachers, sports coaches etc.
Doesn't wash with me.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 09, 2012, 08:34:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
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...... :P
There was a family kicked out of this apartment complex last year. They were the most anti-social good-for-nothing dole merchants you've ever met. Letting their childer run riot to all the hours of the night, screaming and abusing the wee ones, letting them run around outside naked, smoking around them, littering the place with their beer cans... etc. That was one man and one woman producing a family. But it's okay for them to have children? Do we get into the business of assessing peoples' ability to raise children before we decide that they can marry or have offspring?
It's not the sexual orientation of the parents that decides what's best for the children, if you're going to use that argument against gay marriage.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:35:31 PM
I assumed nothing, I asked you a question which you didn't answer.
Was that a response to me?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 08:40:15 PM
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...... :P
You can choose to be a member of a church. You cannot choose your sexual orientation.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 08:40:15 PM
Nobody is putting a gun to any Gay person's head and telling them to get "married" or to adopt kids.
And nobody is putting a gun to any straight person's head and telling them to get "married" or to adopt kids.
Your point?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 09, 2012, 08:41:49 PM
You can choose to be a member of a church. You cannot choose your sexual orientation.
In fairness for a lot of people they don't have a choice, its whatever they are born into and how good a job that environment does of passing that religion/ belief system along, and how much encouragement you are given to question the status quo and think for yourself...
However yes, in many cases you get to choose...
(quality fence sitting there I think)
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 08:40:15 PM
Heganboy nobody called anyone a whack job.
It's ok Ice- I am definitely calling people whack jobs. Actually most people are whack jobs, and indeed for many people it's their only redeeming quality
Religious views on homosexuals adopting children forgive if i can only think of old Ireland where we had unmarried mothers and children abused under the guidance of religion. Thankfully we are more opened minded now and so long as the children get that loving care i wouldn't have any problems with the same sex couples adopting.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 08:57:18 PM
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 can you say they are equal on one hand and not equal on the other.
The issue here is adoption, the point is that the kids that get adopted do not have a good, loving environment and that is why their adoption is required. I don't understand why anyone religious or otherwise would object to the placement of a child in an environment where is would be loved and treated well. Baffling to me
I tink dat gay weding shud not happen. It shud b between man n'd women only!
Quote from: Benny Sweeney on February 09, 2012, 09:10:45 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 09:18:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 09, 2012, 09:16:19 PM
Quote from: Benny Sweeney on February 09, 2012, 09:10:45 PM
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. :D
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 09:18:42 PM
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.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 09:18:42 PM
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?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 09:18:42 PM
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.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 09:18:42 PM
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?
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteSo 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.
What about wife beaters ? Should they be allowed to have children or should they be sterilised ?
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.
Damned if I know how it got locked but apparently I'm able to unlock it.
Carry on...
Grand stuff... I deleted the other one.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 08:40:15 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 09, 2012, 08:34:46 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
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...... :P
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.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 08:57:18 PM
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!
Quote from: armaghniac on February 09, 2012, 09:18:42 PM
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?
I think Iceman is complaining about losing the 'right' to flout the law because it contradicts his religious beliefs.
Fionntamhnach would you say that someone whose dad dies when they are young is less likely to be involved or even interested in football?
QuoteThe 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.
Don't try and divert what I said. My contention was that there is no convincing reason to extend traditional criteria for adoption and that doing so is an unproven experiment, one that children should not be subjected to without need.
QuoteAnd equal treatment is exactly the point.
Equal treatment is not the point. What's best for children is the point. This talk of equal treatment suggests that children are not the focus of this argument, but rather the validation of the adults.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2012, 12:47:52 AM
QuoteThe 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.
Don't try and divert what I said. My contention was that there is no convincing reason to extend traditional criteria for adoption and that doing so is an unproven experiment, one that children should not be subjected to without need.
QuoteAnd equal treatment is exactly the point.
Equal treatment is not the point. What's best for children is the point. This talk of equal treatment suggests that children are not the focus of this argument, but rather the validation of the adults.
You boys have been asked a number of times to provide some evidence that the best interests of children would not be met by allowing gay adoption. Maybe YOU can give us some?
Is anyone on this board allowed to have an opinion without the PC brigade climbing all over them. EC etc have stated opinions and have not claimed them to be fact. Deal with it people, you can't browbeat everyone into submission.
QuoteYou boys have been asked a number of times to provide some evidence that the best interests of children would not be met by allowing gay adoption. Maybe YOU can give us some?
We don't have to provide any evidence. There is a long track record of adoption by regular couples, there is a large supply of such couples wishing to adopt. There is no need to subject children to experiments in untested arrangements which offer no advantages.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2012, 12:59:06 AM
QuoteYou boys have been asked a number of times to provide some evidence that the best interests of children would not be met by allowing gay adoption. Maybe YOU can give us some?
We don't have to provide any evidence. There is a long track record of adoption by regular couples, there is a large supply of such couples wishing to adopt. There is no need to subject children to experiments in untested arrangements which offer no advantages.
Hello? Did you watch my video?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 10, 2012, 12:55:18 AM
Is anyone on this board allowed to have an opinion without the PC brigade climbing all over them. EC etc have stated opinions and have not claimed them to be fact. Deal with it people, you can't browbeat everyone into submission.
Well said ya gayboy
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 10, 2012, 01:06:33 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2012, 12:59:06 AM
QuoteYou boys have been asked a number of times to provide some evidence that the best interests of children would not be met by allowing gay adoption. Maybe YOU can give us some?
We don't have to provide any evidence. There is a long track record of adoption by regular couples, there is a large supply of such couples wishing to adopt. There is no need to subject children to experiments in untested arrangements which offer no advantages.
Hello? Did you watch my video?
Blocked in the 26, probably the lack of shaving.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 10, 2012, 12:55:18 AM
Is anyone on this board allowed to have an opinion without the PC brigade climbing all over them. EC etc have stated opinions and have not claimed them to be fact. Deal with it people, you can't browbeat everyone into submission.
Translation: "Stop throwing these facts and cogent arguments at me! I don't want to hear anything that challenges my existing values or belief system!"
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 09, 2012, 05:25:12 PM
Those opposed to gays raising children should watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=related)
There it is again for those who missed it. What would you say to his female parents? Would you take one look at their gender and say that this lad turned out badly?
Quotehere it is again for those who missed it.
So what. This video shows what exactly? Nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot raise children.
As he drove along the highway, a guy kept seeing billboards with beautiful, tanned people and the words: Visit the Garden of Hedon. His curiosity got the best of him and he turned off the road at the entrance to the place a few miles down the road. He went inside a building marked "Registration" and saw an attractive woman sitting at a desk.
"Exactly what do you do here?" he asked.
"It's quite simple," said the receptionist. "This is a nudist camp. We take off all our clothes and commune with nature."
"Cool," said the guy, "count me in!" So he paid his membership fee, took off his gear and strolled off. As he walked along a path, he saw a big sign which read, "Beware of Gays." A little further along he saw another sign which read the same thing: "Beware of Gays."
He continued walking until he came to a small clearing which had a bronze plaque set in the ground. He bent over to read the plaque and it said, "Sorry, you've had two warnings!"
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2012, 01:21:58 AM
Quotehere it is again for those who missed it.
So what. This video shows what exactly? Nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot raise children.
Er, yes they are.
Eamonn, posting one video from youtube does not equate to evidence that gay couples provide a loving and valuable family.
I would point to us all, assuming we were all brought up in normal households (as I define the term and as God intended) that we turned out ok - is that not evidence enough that a hetrosexual set of parents are fit for the job? If God wanted two men to have children surely he would have equipped them with the bits and pieces to get the job done without the need for a woman?
I don't want the right to flaunt anything more that the PC brigade want the right to flaunt their opinions.
If laws have to be changed to appease the PC Brigade then why not changed to account for Christian's beliefs?
Why are the needs of Homosexuals and people who decide they are actually men born in women's bodies more important than mine?
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs when every door has to be flung open for a love triangle of two men and one woman who call themselves a "family" and decide they want to adopt?
Am I saying that Gay couples cannot make good parents? NO
I am sure there are lots of examples and instances where they have. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, it doesn't mean because the two lads you know from work have a lovely girl that they have tea parties with, that I have to applaud.
I have my beliefs and you have yours. My argument from the outset is that if you want your rights, then I am entitled to mine.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
Eamonn, posting one video from youtube does not equate to evidence that gay couples provide a loving and valuable family.
I would point to us all, assuming we were all brought up in normal households (as I define the term and as God intended) that we turned out ok - is that not evidence enough that a hetrosexual set of parents are fit for the job? If God wanted two men to have children surely he would have equipped them with the bits and pieces to get the job done without the need for a woman?
I don't want the right to flaunt anything more that the PC brigade want the right to flaunt their opinions.
If laws have to be changed to appease the PC Brigade then why not changed to account for Christian's beliefs?
Why are the needs of Homosexuals and people who decide they are actually men born in women's bodies more important than mine?
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs when every door has to be flung open for a love triangle of two men and one woman who call themselves a "family" and decide they want to adopt?
Am I saying that Gay couples cannot make good parents? NO
I am sure there are lots of examples and instances where they have. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, it doesn't mean because the two lads you know from work have a lovely girl that they have tea parties with, that I have to applaud.
I have my beliefs and you have yours. My argument from the outset is that if you want your rights, then I am entitled to mine.
Can you elaborate and provide proof?
Ice, listen to me.
Nobody is stopping heterosexual couples from marrying or raising children.
Somebody is stopping gay couples from getting married and raising children.
Do you see the difference?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2012, 12:59:06 AM
QuoteYou boys have been asked a number of times to provide some evidence that the best interests of children would not be met by allowing gay adoption. Maybe YOU can give us some?
We don't have to provide any evidence. There is a long track record of adoption by regular couples, there is a large supply of such couples wishing to adopt. There is no need to subject children to experiments in untested arrangements which offer no advantages.
Bollocks. If you want to discriminate against gay couples based on fears that they might endanger a child's upbringing, you should be at least start with some smidgen of evidence to support your position. By your rationale, women should never have got into the workplace back in the day because separating young children from their mother and putting them in daycare might have been thought to be potentially be harmful.
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2012, 02:02:58 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 10, 2012, 12:59:06 AM
QuoteYou boys have been asked a number of times to provide some evidence that the best interests of children would not be met by allowing gay adoption. Maybe YOU can give us some?
We don't have to provide any evidence. There is a long track record of adoption by regular couples, there is a large supply of such couples wishing to adopt. There is no need to subject children to experiments in untested arrangements which offer no advantages.
Bollocks. If you want to discriminate against gay couples based on fears that they might endanger a child's upbringing, you should be at least start with some smidgen of evidence to support your position. By your rationale, women should never have got into the workplace back in the day because separating young children from their mother and putting them in daycare might have been thought to be potentially be harmful.
Only if the daycare was run by the church
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 10, 2012, 01:53:06 AM
Ice, listen to me.
Nobody is stopping heterosexual couples from marrying or raising children.
Somebody is stopping gay couples from getting married and raising children.
Do you see the difference?
The PC brigade is trampling on his right to have his prejudice enshrined in law.
I'm assuming that's the right he's worried about losing, despite the fact that no one is forcing him to actually do anything or think differently.
Quote from: muppet on February 10, 2012, 01:45:48 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
Eamonn, posting one video from youtube does not equate to evidence that gay couples provide a loving and valuable family.
I would point to us all, assuming we were all brought up in normal households (as I define the term and as God intended) that we turned out ok - is that not evidence enough that a hetrosexual set of parents are fit for the job? If God wanted two men to have children surely he would have equipped them with the bits and pieces to get the job done without the need for a woman?
I don't want the right to flaunt anything more that the PC brigade want the right to flaunt their opinions.
If laws have to be changed to appease the PC Brigade then why not changed to account for Christian's beliefs?
Why are the needs of Homosexuals and people who decide they are actually men born in women's bodies more important than mine?
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs when every door has to be flung open for a love triangle of two men and one woman who call themselves a "family" and decide they want to adopt?
Am I saying that Gay couples cannot make good parents? NO
I am sure there are lots of examples and instances where they have. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, it doesn't mean because the two lads you know from work have a lovely girl that they have tea parties with, that I have to applaud.
I have my beliefs and you have yours. My argument from the outset is that if you want your rights, then I am entitled to mine.
Can you elaborate and provide proof?
Yes please do.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rc8k_D3yYoE/Tw4IyOKMysI/AAAAAAAAAls/awgasVzJMfA/s1600/Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif)
Given all thats gone on in the last few years we should probably be questioning the parenting abilities of the uber-"christians" instead of gay people. It was the traditionally married flock,and not gays, that turned a blind eye while the Magdelen beasts and fiddling priests had their wicked way. Some "suitable" environment that created for children ::)
Then again, I suppose that is what god intended.
The wife and I had been thinking that it was about time that we told our teenage son that he was adopted. We sat him down and I said, "Son, there is something that your mother and I want to say and I want you to know this is the hardest thing we've ever had to do."
He said, "I know what you're going to say... It's true, I'm gay."
I said, "Well, thanks for making what I'm about to do a f**king pleasure."
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 10, 2012, 01:13:12 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 09, 2012, 05:25:12 PM
Those opposed to gays raising children should watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=related)
There it is again for those who missed it. What would you say to his female parents? Would you take one look at their gender and say that this lad turned out badly?
Inspiring video Ned. Did you watch him on The Ellen Degeneres show after that? Also, Gareth Thomas discussing the same topic with her?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
Eamonn, posting one video from youtube does not equate to evidence that gay couples provide a loving and valuable family.
I would point to us all, assuming we were all brought up in normal households
I don't think there is anything such as a cohort of "normal" people and that you can draw a line around them and define against the rest which would include people who are regarded as sexual deviants. Everyone has their bit of strangeness. A lot of kids grow up in dysfunctional but apparently "normal" families.
Anyway I think gay people should be allowed to marry because it's about respect for their relationships. The debate about gay couples having kids is ever going to be finalised.
Firstly. I've no problem with gay people adopting. I see no logical reason why a gay couple would be any better or worst than a heterosexual couple. Can I throw out a new question? Do civil partnership get the same tax breaks as a married couple? If they do is there any reason why for instance 2 sisters who live together could not be afforded the same rights?if they lived together 5/10/15 years.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
Eamonn, posting one video from youtube does not equate to evidence that gay couples provide a loving and valuable family.
Even if that video shows a person who was brought up by gay parents who provided a loving and valuable family? Well what kind of evidence would you consider admissible then?
QuoteI would point to us all, assuming we were all brought up in normal households (as I define the term and as God intended) that we turned out ok - is that not evidence enough that a hetrosexual set of parents are fit for the job?
Leaving aside your invocation of the invisible man in the sky, has anyone here suggested that all heterosexual parents are not fit for the job? I hope you're not because I can't be assed googling up a picture of a straw man so I can post it up here. In any case I have given examples of heterosexual parents who happen to be unfit for the job, you can see them for yourself in certain inner city areas. But their ineptitude as parents is not a function of their sexual orientation, wouldn't you say? It's got more to do with their own upbringing and a host of other social factors. You wouldn't point at a bad parent and say "oh look, there's a bad parent. Must be because she likes boys." That'd be a bit silly, wouldn't it?
QuoteIf God wanted two men to have children surely he would have equipped them with the bits and pieces to get the job done without the need for a woman?
Well that is just spectacularly stupid even if you omitted the invisible man in the sky part. Are you suggesting that infertile couples should not be allowed to adopt or have babies by IVF? Has to be all natural or nothing with you because the invisible man in the sky said so, is that it?
QuoteI don't want the right to flaunt anything more that the PC brigade want the right to flaunt their opinions.
Wa? "Flaunt their opinions?" Are you for freedom of speech or agen it?
QuoteIf laws have to be changed to appease the PC Brigade ...
(http://blogs.csusb.edu/coyotecalling/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/sticks-and-stones-1-300x282.jpg)
Quotethen why not changed to account for Christian's beliefs?
Do I really have to explain this? How not everyone in the country is a Christian? How it's wrong to pick the doctrines of one particular religion and enshrine that in law? Come on...
QuoteWhy are the needs of Homosexuals and people who decide they are actually men born in women's bodies more important than mine?
I think the right to the same dignity and legal standing as a heterosexual married couple is a tad higher in the priority list than your right to live in a fantasy land where everyone is straight and all families fit into a one-size-fits-all model prescribed by sinister middle aged (supposed) virgins in frocks who don't know the first thing about sexual relationships, married life, or raising a family. Your "right" to discriminate in the provision of social services to a vulnerable group of people, or to deprive your own employees of their legal entitlements, because of some outmoded myth is nowhere near as high on the moral scale as a couple who want to raise a family and have that unit recognized in law. Not even high enough to lick its boots.
QuoteWhy should I be forced to go against my beliefs when every door has to be flung open for a love triangle of two men and one woman who call themselves a "family" and decide they want to adopt?
Three-way couples are asking for recognition as married? When did that happen?
QuoteAm I saying that Gay couples cannot make good parents? NO
Yes you are. A few sentences ago you questioned a video that I posted from youtube as evidence that gay parents can produce a good family setting in which to raise children. You said "posting one video from youtube does not equate to evidence that gay couples provide a loving and valuable family." That sounded to me like you were challenging the idea that gay couples can provide a loving and valuable family, i.e. the idea that they can make good parents.
QuoteI am sure there are lots of examples and instances where they have. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, it doesn't mean because the two lads you know from work have a lovely girl that they have tea parties with, that I have to applaud.
Applaud? I don't expect you to applaud. Acknowledging that it can and does happen would be a good enough start. Acknowledging that sexual orientation is no grounds for opposing someone's right to be recognized as a married couple would be a good enough start. Acknowledging that sexual orientation is no grounds for denying people the right to become parents would be a good start.
Oh and would you please give it a rest with the "I'm entitled to my opinion" mantra? I heard you the first time! Nobody's telling you to shut up. You have the right to your opinions, and I have the right to challenge them. If you don't want to have your opinions challenged, why are you posting them up here for all the world to see? Do you think people are just going to sit back and be quiet or something? Coming in here, stating your opinions and then crying like a wounded puppy when they're challenged is not going to win you much sympathy from me. Man up and defend your case!
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
assuming we were all brought up in normal households (as I define the term and as God intended)
Where did God define this term?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2012, 08:54:19 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
assuming we were all brought up in normal households (as I define the term and as God intended)
Where did God define this term?
Iceman is God. He created God in his own image.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
Eamonn, posting one video from youtube does not equate to evidence that gay couples provide a loving and valuable family.
What does it equate to?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 10, 2012, 08:54:54 AM
Iceman is God. He created God in his own image.
Icemanpromorphism
The 'pro gay adoption brigade' are getting very condescending on this topic.
Eamonnca1, why do you keep referring to God as the ''invisible man in the sky''.
That is a pathetic way of trying to insult people with Christian beliefs I believe.
QuoteWhy are the needs of Homosexuals and people who decide they are actually men born in women's bodies more important than mine?
What laws apply to you that dont apply to them? What advantages are they being given that you are not?
If they said that christians shouldnt be allowed to adopt then there might be an issue...
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on February 10, 2012, 07:58:27 AM
Firstly. I've no problem with gay people adopting. I see no logical reason why a gay couple would be any better or worst than a heterosexual couple. Can I throw out a new question? Do civil partnership get the same tax breaks as a married couple? If they do is there any reason why for instance 2 sisters who live together could not be afforded the same rights?if they lived together 5/10/15 years.
http://www.jordanssolicitors.co.uk/resource/inheritance-tax-sisters-lose-test-case/
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpiqx2Bz7W1qzn9pno1_500.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rr5uTNI4F6I/TZAfqElicfI/AAAAAAAAAKw/pal9eA74_PY/s1600/Gay+Adoption+%25C2%25A9+Kerry+Wright.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kigWm_HffxQ/Tw5SL25yizI/AAAAAAAACnw/Hn0Mm1n2_dE/s1600/gay-adoption-consequences.png)
I am aware of that case. Just wondering what opinions you guys have on it.
this thread cracks me up
just for the non PC Brigade, are you aware that the whole idea that a "family" as you define it, i.e. parents of opposite sex and their kids only became a viable entity in the late 16th century? and actually only became commonplace 150 years later? The raising of children before that was done by an extended circle including extended family and neighbors and various other "elders" in the community...
QuoteIf God wanted two men to have children surely he would have equipped them with the bits and pieces to get the job done without the need for a woman?
Are you f'king kidding me? I have to say I was respecting your position, although strongly disagreeing with it until this came along. Thats not an argument that's just lazy.
Come on people go learn something, educate yourselves, there's a bunch of you sounding like Ian Paisley in 1970, and I'm worried that you don't even realize it. Never Never Never, The GAABoard right wing says No.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 09, 2012, 03:38:29 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on February 09, 2012, 03:35:07 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. It is however an ignorant and ill informed one.
That, sir, is your opinion and not fact.
I'm sure I'm not on my own here but doubt if many will voice agreement.
Fact is EC that many Heterosexual couples do not deserve to have a dog let alone children. Gay couples can provide stable and loving relationships which are the bed rock of any family life. There is no evidence to support the theory (Not yours I know) put out there by others that gay parents would turn the child gay. It is not a lifestyle choice but an orientation.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 04:03:22 PM
I am against Gay people adopting because it could lead to bullying of the child in later life.
IMO one of the fundamental aspects of adoption is giving the child a loving mother and father. It is not fair for a child to be adopted by either two men or two women and thus be deprived of a loving father/mother figure in their childhood.
If that makes me ignorant and intolerant then that's what I am.
Condemned by your own words.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 10:07:03 AM
The 'pro gay adoption brigade' are getting very condescending on this topic.
Eamonnca1, why do you keep referring to God as the ''invisible man in the sky''.
That is a pathetic way of trying to insult people with Christian beliefs I believe.
I think the point is that using God as a defense isn't really adding much to someone's case as the very existence of God, whatever about his or her will, is not exactly a given.
Quote from: nifan on February 10, 2012, 10:24:19 AM
QuoteWhy are the needs of Homosexuals and people who decide they are actually men born in women's bodies more important than mine?
What laws apply to you that dont apply to them? What advantages are they being given that you are not?
If they said that christians shouldnt be allowed to adopt then there might be an issue...
There seems to be a marked reluctance to answer this question amidst all the whinging about trampled-on rights.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 09, 2012, 04:57:40 PM
Christian based adoption agencies throughout America and throughout the UK like Catholic Care are being forced by the Government to comply with recently passed legislation to allow same sex couples to adopt children from their agencies. Even though this directly conflicts with their religious opinion, practice and code.
These agencies have been forced to close in many cases. These instances go back to 2007 in England when Catholic Care clashed with the government on this very issue. The Government insisted that if they wish to continue to work with local authorities, Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide gay adoption services.
There are agencies who provide and cater for gay adoption. I don't have to agree with them. But at the same time Christian based charities who provide services should not be forced surely down that road?
The Catholic Church of which I am a practicing member would need to sort out errant priests and indeed the lack of priests resulting from outdated man made rules and instutionalist attitudes to modern life before lecturing on the suitability of gay adoption.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
If God wanted two men to have children surely he would have equipped them with the bits and pieces to get the job done without the need for a woman?
It might be worth thinking about why straight couples choose to adopt. It's often because 'God' didn't equip them to have children of their own. Should we allow such couples to adopt? It clearly wasn't in 'God's' plan for them to have children.
If we take God out of the equation, do we believe in nature? Nature obviously designed children to be created by the coming together of a man and a woman, not a man and another man of woman and another woman.
This debate at the end of the day is all about the children and not the people looking to adopt. If there are plenty of hetro couples available to adopt then why consider Gay couples. Why experiment with the children. If it is not broken then why fix it? If Children are spending too much time in care I would suggest it is because the process of adoption is too slow.
Quote from: muppet on February 10, 2012, 01:45:48 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
Eamonn, posting one video from youtube does not equate to evidence that gay couples provide a loving and valuable family.
I would point to us all, assuming we were all brought up in normal households (as I define the term and as God intended) that we turned out ok - is that not evidence enough that a hetrosexual set of parents are fit for the job? If God wanted two men to have children surely he would have equipped them with the bits and pieces to get the job done without the need for a woman?
I don't want the right to flaunt anything more that the PC brigade want the right to flaunt their opinions.
If laws have to be changed to appease the PC Brigade then why not changed to account for Christian's beliefs?
Why are the needs of Homosexuals and people who decide they are actually men born in women's bodies more important than mine?
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs when every door has to be flung open for a love triangle of two men and one woman who call themselves a "family" and decide they want to adopt?
Am I saying that Gay couples cannot make good parents? NO
I am sure there are lots of examples and instances where they have. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, it doesn't mean because the two lads you know from work have a lovely girl that they have tea parties with, that I have to applaud.
I have my beliefs and you have yours. My argument from the outset is that if you want your rights, then I am entitled to mine.
Can you elaborate and provide proof?
Check between your legs - you don't need a biology lesson surely?
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
If we take God out of the equation, do we believe in nature? Nature obviously designed children to be created by the coming together of a man and a woman, not a man and another man of woman and another woman.
This debate at the end of the day is all about the children and not the people looking to adopt. If there are plenty of hetro couples available to adopt then why consider Gay couples. Why experiment with the children. If it is not broken then why fix it? If Children are spending too much time in care I would suggest it is because the process of adoption is too slow.
Nature didnt design it for us to take kids from incapable parents and place them with ones who had been vetted for their ability to raise them - however thats what we are talking about here.
If we only did what nature "designed" we would have a very different existence to the one we have.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
If we take God out of the equation, do we believe in nature? Nature obviously designed children to be created by the coming together of a man and a woman, not a man and another man of woman and another woman.
the rebuttal is Intelligent Design?
getting funnier by the post...
nature didn't design the computer you are using to post this shite, please put it away and don't use it again
This is what happens here. I say three or four words and Eamonn translates that into a whole chapter.
Christian rights are being oppressed. I have pointed out two instances surrounding gay adoption and contraception.
The Gay community get oppressed and everyone is up in arms. But when Christians ask for exceptions - we're the worst in the world.
Eamonn you rant and rave at me here about presenting cases when you present one youtube video. Dissecting my posts and rearranging the words to suit your agenda doesn't make your position any stronger.
To address another point. Some heterosexuals are infertile. They are exceptions. That is not a case for Gay Marriage or Gay Adoption. "They can't have kids naturally and neither can we - see we're the same...... "
My overriding point throughout this entire conversation is the Church has as much right as any other group to fight for exceptions. I don't want to be forced into contributing towards contraception or abortive medicines if it goes against my religious beliefs. I don't believe employers should be forced either.
Argue away and fight away for Gay rights and whatever else you want to. But let me fight for mine too surely?
So you boys are settling on the "experimenting on children" argument now that your other arguments have failed?? :D
A neighbour of ours from home (who now lives in London) is gay, and he and his partner adopted a little 2 year old boy a few months ago. They'd been going through the process for a number of years and got the good news in 2011.
I met him at Christmas - the (adorable) wee guy gets limitless love from his adoptive parents - one has given up his job to be a full time parent.
Can't be bothered arguing any of the points, but this child will have a loving and warm environment in which to grow up. And we'll make him into a Tyrone fan when he comes back to visit his granny, aunts and uncles.
Iceman, we all contribute moeny to things we don't agree with. Its part of living in a modern society.
Asking for exemptions from anti-discrimination rules is not a fight against oppression. I'm sure some white South Africans and northern Unionists FELT oppressed when their institutional or non-official discrimination rules were rolled back, but it doesn't make it so.
And on the exemptions thing, I've asked this already but I'll try again: if I worked for a Jehovah's Witness-owned company, would it be all right for them to omit blood transfusions from my health plan?
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2012, 01:37:06 PM
So you boys are settling on the "experimenting on children" argument now that your other arguments have failed?? :D
What has failed?
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2012, 01:45:35 PM
Iceman, we all contribute moeny to things we don't agree with. Its part of living in a modern society.
Asking for exemptions from anti-discrimination rules is not a fight against oppression. I'm sure some white South Africans and northern Unionists FELT oppressed when their institutional or non-official discrimination rules were rolled back, but it doesn't make it so.
And on the exemptions thing, I've asked this already but I'll try again: if I worked for a Jehovah's Witness-owned company, would it be all right for them to omit blood transfusions from my health plan?
J70 I think you would have a strong case and I honestly would support and respect your stance.
Paying and contributing towards Abortive medicines goes against everything I stand for. Even if I wasn't religious, I couldn't be part of it.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:31:14 PM
To address another point. Some heterosexuals are infertile. They are exceptions. That is not a case for Gay Marriage or Gay Adoption. "They can't have kids naturally and neither can we - see we're the same...... "
But it was you who made the argument that God hadn't intended gay couples to be parents. Then surely he hadn't intended infertile couples to be parents either(?) So if we base adoption policy on 'God's intentions', then infertile couples are no more entitled to adopt than gay couples. Or have you moved on from that dead end?
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2012, 01:37:06 PM
So you boys are settling on the "experimenting on children" argument now that your other arguments have failed?? :D
What has failed?
The oppression and "I just feel this way because I feel this way" type of arguments. There hasn't been much in the way of logic or evidence, that's for sure.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
This debate at the end of the day is all about the children and not the people looking to adopt. If there are plenty of hetro couples available to adopt then why consider Gay couples. Why experiment with the children. If it is not broken then why fix it? If Children are spending too much time in care I would suggest it is because the process of adoption is too slow.
That's a lot if 'ifs'!
Would you consider it an experiment for a white couple to adopt an african or asian child? Would you be opposed to that?
And as there
have been cases of gay couples raising children already, it's really no more of an experiment than placing children with a straight couple who have never looked after a child before. I have seen no evidence to suggest that one of these couples would do a better/worse job of raising a child than the other.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 01:43:43 AM
If laws have to be changed to appease the PC Brigade then why not changed to account for Christian's beliefs?
It's not about changing the law to appease 'the PC Brigade'; it's to provide equality / end discrimination.
Quote from: heganboy on February 10, 2012, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
What has failed?
your education and "thought" process
Must you bring it down to the level of personal insult on such a serious matter :-\
It is obvious that I will not convince some people that hetro couples are more naturally suited to raising children that gay couples. Like wise I will not be swayed..
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 02:31:17 PM
It is obvious that I will not convince some people that hetro couples are more naturally suited to raising children that gay couples. Like wise I will not be swayed..
I could be swayed... if you/anyone could provide any convincing/reliable evidence (not opinion) that it would be detrimental to the children.
Quote from: heganboy on February 10, 2012, 12:15:56 PM
this thread cracks me up
just for the non PC Brigade, are you aware that the whole idea that a "family" as you define it, i.e. parents of opposite sex and their kids only became a viable entity in the late 16th century? and actually only became commonplace 150 years later? The raising of children before that was done by an extended circle including extended family and neighbors and various other "elders" in the community...
QuoteIf God wanted two men to have children surely he would have equipped them with the bits and pieces to get the job done without the need for a woman?
Are you f'king kidding me? I have to say I was respecting your position, although strongly disagreeing with it until this came along. Thats not an argument that's just lazy.
Did God (god?) not make creature which are asexual?
I'm all for it
(http://s3.jrnl.ie/media/2011/08/gaykath-390x285.jpg)
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: heganboy on February 10, 2012, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
What has failed?
your education and "thought" process
Must you bring it down to the level of personal insult on such a serious matter :-\
It is obvious that I will not convince some people that hetro couples are more naturally suited to raising children that gay couples. Like wise I will not be swayed..
But you haven't tried to convince anyone.
Statistically, it is very likely that some of the posters on this Board have a gay/bisexual parent, whether they (posters) know it or not.
Conceivably* some may have two.
* - Pun intended ;)
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on February 10, 2012, 02:53:02 PM
I'm all for it
(http://s3.jrnl.ie/media/2011/08/gaykath-390x285.jpg)
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r310/ludermor/Podge20and20Rodge.jpg) Kathleen is the spit of Podge.
Iceman - let's put this part to bed right away. Your rights are not being impacted. You have choices. You may not like them, they may be more expensive, or more hassle than you currently deal with but you have choices. You can choose not to use or buy abortive medication or contraception. You can choose to not pay into a health insurance scheme which covers these abominations. Again - you have choices. Gay couples under your rules would not. That is where their rights are being denied. Something which you cannot claim without your tounge firmly in your cheek. You have the right to religious freedom - nothing is denied to you on the basis of this freedom. You may suffer the courage of your convictions but there is nothing available to me that is not available to you. There are certain things unavailable to homosexuals in the world you, EC, fitzroy etc would want us to continue to live in. It is unfair, it is unjust and you've some feckin' sprouts on you to be complaining you are living in world where your rights are being taken away from you. Again - you have choices.
By the way - the Illinois diocese which was 'forced to close'... They had a state budget of $7.5 million a year, and chose to close rather than face an ugly situation in which they would be breaking the law by not offering Catholic adoptive and foster servies to homoseuxual couples. The had a choice too...
Didn't jesus say "come onto me little children"? What do you think Jesus would make of your stance? (genuine question) Personally I think he'd be all for children being in loving homes. Especially as he was asexual.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 10, 2012, 12:55:18 AM
Is anyone on this board allowed to have an opinion without the PC brigade climbing all over them. EC etc have stated opinions and have not claimed them to be fact. Deal with it people, you can't browbeat everyone into submission.
But they can effectively browbeat the homosexuals into second class citizenship, because of opinons like this. Lame arugment Tony...
I'd replied to your post earlier yesterday before the thread got locked where you rightfully accused me of being in America too long. You may unfortunatly be onto something with that observation. I'd never knowingly met a gay person before I came here (that I knew of at least), and having worked with them, shared holidays and parties and watched our children grow up together - I cannot fathom the thought of some of these opinons. I could "deal with it" if there was so much as even a thread of evidence (even anecdotal as I've said), something, anything which pointed to their unsuitability as parents. As it is I have bucketloads of interactions with gay parents daily. I have a gay cousin, I have a gay sister in law and her wife with a child. I have 2 gay co-workers - both with children (biological). They are no different than any of the rest of us. No different than raising a child in a vegan household, or a Jewish one. To hear people talking about this being an unnecessary 'experiment' and 'long may it continue that these people do not have the right to raise a child' is disgusting. Judgement based on ignorance is a shame - that's as mildly as I'd put it.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lonbzsUc6w1qh6rivo1_500.jpg)
There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be. It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.
Quote from: Puckoon on February 10, 2012, 03:42:06 PM
Iceman - let's put this part to bed right away. Your rights are not being impacted. You have choices. You may not like them, they may be more expensive, or more hassle than you currently deal with but you have choices. You can choose not to use or buy abortive medication or contraception. You can choose to not pay into a health insurance scheme which covers these abominations. Again - you have choices. Gay couples under your rules would not. That is where their rights are being denied. Something which you cannot claim without your tounge firmly in your cheek. You have the right to religious freedom - nothing is denied to you on the basis of this freedom. You may suffer the courage of your convictions but there is nothing available to me that is not available to you. There are certain things unavailable to homosexuals in the world you, EC, fitzroy etc would want us to continue to live in. It is unfair, it is unjust and you've some feckin' sprouts on you to be complaining you are living in world where your rights are being taken away from you. Again - you have choices.
By the way - the Illinois diocese which was 'forced to close'... They had a state budget of $7.5 million a year, and chose to close rather than face an ugly situation in which they would be breaking the law by not offering Catholic adoptive and foster servies to homoseuxual couples. The had a choice too...
Didn't jesus say "come onto me little children"? What do you think Jesus would make of your stance? (genuine question) Personally I think he'd be all for children being in loving homes. Especially as he was asexual.
Finally a post without personal insults.....
My rights are being impacted Puck (IMO) if I am being forced into a situation that compromises my religious beliefs. Yes, i have choices, but like you indicated those choices would bear a huge financial impact on my family, one that we couldn't survive.
The Illinois Diocese is only one affected by all of this and I listed some examples as far back as 2007 in England when Catholic Charities were being forced to go against their religious beliefs. Yes, they had a choice, but withdrawing from providing adoption service to over 4000 families per year isn't the best of options, in my book.
I understand what you might perceive about my beliefs and opinions. Some of what I say oftentimes does come across as very fundamentalist. A lot of these are based on my personal beliefs and convictions. My faith defines me as a person, a father and a husband. Protecting the institution of marriage and protecting all life is a living out of those convictions. Who would I be if I didn't fight for or stand up for what I believe in?
I believe homosexuals have a choice. There are lots of organizations and institutions that allow them to adopt. I said numerous times I don't agree with it but I have not denied that some homosexual parents could provide adequate love and care for children. I don't believe that as a result of the pressures of homosexual groups, that religious organizations should be forced to go against their beliefs and facilitate gay adoptions. The Church, Church organizations and people who would call themselves Christians should not bend the principles of God's word to suit minority groups.
Jesus didn't speak directly on any of this unfortunately. He left behind an advocate however (the Holy Spirit) and the Church to pass on His teachings. In many of the letters there are very clear points on homosexuality. The difficulty in engaging in any conversation (from my perspective) is that the majority of posters here completely dismiss God, the Bible and the Church. If my arguments are based on any of this, then I never have a credible point in the eyes of others.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on February 10, 2012, 04:09:05 PM
There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be. It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.
And everyone is entitled to challenge those opinions. And if someone wants to engage in debate, they have to be prepared for the possibility that flaws in the basis of their opinion might be exposed. We're all big boys and girls.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2012, 04:13:27 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on February 10, 2012, 04:09:05 PM
There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be. It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.
And everyone is entitled to challenge those opinions. And if someone wants to engage in debate, they have to be prepared for the possibility that flaws in the basis of their opinion might be exposed. We're all big boys and girls.
100% true, but browbeating does not constitute debate IMO.
How come there are so many adoptions in the US anyway ?
France has something like 300 a year. Ireland has a handful. People in Western Europe have
given up on handing away their babies. It's not the end of the world if a young women has an
unplanned pregnancy and wants to keep her baby. Papa don't preach but is that still the case in the US ?
I think the whole christian fundi focus on sex is nuts. What about the environment dudes?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:09:55 PM
Finally a post without personal insults.....
No need to play the victim - the vast majority of posts have been free from personal insults.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:09:55 PM
Some of what I say oftentimes does come across as very fundamentalist.
That's because it is.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:09:55 PM
The difficulty in engaging in any conversation (from my perspective) is that the majority of posters here completely dismiss God, the Bible and the Church. If my arguments are based on any of this, then I never have a credible point in the eyes of others.
That's true. If you base your arguments on matters of faith rather than reality/evidence, it's a bit difficult to have a logical debate.
Ive to do this in parts - my computer is acting up and keeps scrolling to the top of my posts when I type more than 5 lines (wahey! I hear you say, now if we could only get EG's computer infected the same way :)).
QuoteYes, they had a choice, but withdrawing from providing adoption service to over 4000 families per year isn't the best of options, in my book.
Are you saying they made a bad choice? I think they did too.
QuoteProtecting the institution of marriage and protecting all life is a living out of those convictions.
Once the governments of all countries where civil marriage is acceptable allowed for marriage to come out of the church the "institution of marriage" was always going to be subject to change and modification based on the needs and wants of the populations. If marriage had continued to be a solely religious sacrament - then many arguments and tears could have been avoided. Of course it would mean people who didnt belong to a church couldn't be married. The instituion is no longer what it once was.
QuoteThe Church, Church organizations and people who would call themselves Christians should not bend the principles of God's word to suit minority groups.
What about bending their principles to behave within the law, which I think is the ultimate point? These people do not want to wage war on the church - they want to be accepted for who they are, attain the same rights as every other human, and then be left alone.
QuoteMy rights are being impacted Puck (IMO) if I am being forced into a situation that compromises my religious beliefs. Yes, i have choices, but like you indicated those choices would bear a huge financial impact on my family, one that we couldn't survive.
Finally - I still don't believe that your rights are being impacted. You are being forced into a difficult choice - but life is full of them. You are though being forced into this choice based on your choice of being a Christian. All options
are open to you. You still have the rights - some of them may be just more expensive than others. That's still a better deal than you want to give the Gays.
I admire your beliefs. Some days I wish I had them but like Custer - I find myself surrounded by gays.
Quote from: Puckoon on February 10, 2012, 04:21:03 PM
Ive to do this in parts - my computer is acting up and keeps scrolling to the top of my posts when I type more than 5 lines (wahey! I hear you say, now if we could only get EG's computer infected the same way :)).
QuoteYes, they had a choice, but withdrawing from providing adoption service to over 4000 families per year isn't the best of options, in my book.
Are you saying they made a bad choice? I think they did too.
QuoteProtecting the institution of marriage and protecting all life is a living out of those convictions.
Once the governments of all countries where civil marriage is acceptable allowed for marriage to come out of the church the "institution of marriage" was always going to be subject to change and modification based on the needs and wants of the populations. If marriage had continued to be a solely religious sacrament - then many arguments and tears could have been avoided. Of course it would mean people who didnt belong to a church couldn't be married. The instituion is no longer what it once was.
What do you do though Puck when faced with a decision that would force you to compromise on something you hold sacred? I don't know what example to give you that would resonate with your personally or that you could understand my point better. If I refuse to buy in to the Healthcare plan that includes elements that deny my faith and convictions then I am financially ruined. But I have no other choice. I can't deny my faith and I can't deny my God.
Yes Marriage is changing and has changed. I don't have to like it.
Quote from: Puckoon on February 10, 2012, 04:00:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 10, 2012, 12:55:18 AM
Is anyone on this board allowed to have an opinion without the PC brigade climbing all over them. EC etc have stated opinions and have not claimed them to be fact. Deal with it people, you can't browbeat everyone into submission.
But they can effectively browbeat the homosexuals into second class citizenship, because of opinons like this. Lame arugment Tony...
I'd replied to your post earlier yesterday before the thread got locked where you rightfully accused me of being in America too long. You may unfortunatly be onto something with that observation. I'd never knowingly met a gay person before I came here (that I knew of at least), and having worked with them, shared holidays and parties and watched our children grow up together - I cannot fathom the thought of some of these opinons. I could "deal with it" if there was so much as even a thread of evidence (even anecdotal as I've said), something, anything which pointed to their unsuitability as parents. As it is I have bucketloads of interactions with gay parents daily. I have a gay cousin, I have a gay sister in law and her wife with a child. I have 2 gay co-workers - both with children (biological). They are no different than any of the rest of us. No different than raising a child in a vegan household, or a Jewish one. To hear people talking about this being an unnecessary 'experiment' and 'long may it continue that these people do not have the right to raise a child' is disgusting. Judgement based on ignorance is a shame - that's as mildly as I'd put it.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lonbzsUc6w1qh6rivo1_500.jpg)
I'm happy in my life after reading that.
I'd bend. Honest to God ( :o) I'd bend. There comes a time when you cannot have the cake and eat it and tough decisions need to be made.
This might sound crass - but if I was you - I'd pray and ask for guidance.
In any case - I think financial ruin is taking it a bit too far...? We arent talking thousands of dollars here.
Here's a question - what's more important to you - your family or your faith? I imagine it has to be the family and so you do what you have to do to provide.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:31:57 PM
What do you do though Puck when faced with a decision that would force you to compromise on something you hold sacred? I don't know what example to give you that would resonate with your personally or that you could understand my point better. If I refuse to buy in to the Healthcare plan that includes elements that deny my faith and convictions then I am financially ruined. But I have no other choice. I can't deny my faith and I can't deny my God.
Did you not manage to bend the rules to get rid of a few nuisance cats?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:09:55 PM
The Church, Church organizations and people who would call themselves Christians should not bend the principles of God's word to suit minority groups.
In many of the letters there are very clear points on homosexuality. The difficulty in engaging in any conversation (from my perspective) is that the majority of posters here completely dismiss God, the Bible and the Church. If my arguments are based on any of this, then I never have a credible point in the eyes of others.
I absolutely and utterly endorse that you are entitled to whatever beliefs religious and political that you want, and not only that you have the right to freedom of expression of those beliefs.
The issue that I have is with using this belief system to justify discrimination. Everyone else on the planet also has the right to their belief system no matter how repulsive or wrong it may be to you. Now I may take issue with your beliefs, and indeed encourage you to educate yourself on the belief systems of others, or even just appreciate that others have a different and indeed diametrically opposite view to yours but they can still have that view.
If your religious beliefs are set in stone then you shouldn't bend them to suit any group minority or otherwise, but then equally you should accept the higher financial costs to stay true to those beliefs, rather than impose your beliefs on others. You say the choice would make you choose between the Financial costs of compromising your beliefs or breaking up your family. Thats a high price on your belief system, which comes first, wallet or bible?
Luke 6:31
What would you do if someone were to prevent you from having children because you were a heterosexual married catholic?
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
But convictions sent men we all know to war. Many Irish men and women who picked up a gun in defense of their country, or who starved themselves to death in a prison cell, did so based on convictions. They choose what they held sacred over their families.
That blows my mind, fair play to you. I hope the lord never visits you and tells you he's chosen you and your first born to try to the old Abraham and Issac trick again.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on February 10, 2012, 04:09:05 PM
There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be. It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.
Hold on a minute there. No one is captive here. No one is being forced to post or read the discussion. But if you offer up your opinion in a public forum like this you are not entitled to not have it challenged. If challenges to your opinions upset you, then don't post them.
Iceman
How would your health insurance compromise your religious beliefs ? I have no clue what you mean on this.
US health insurance is such a car crash. You mentioned a couple of thousand dollars a month. It isn't Christian to change people that sort of money.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on February 10, 2012, 04:14:52 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2012, 04:13:27 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on February 10, 2012, 04:09:05 PM
There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be. It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.
And everyone is entitled to challenge those opinions. And if someone wants to engage in debate, they have to be prepared for the possibility that flaws in the basis of their opinion might be exposed. We're all big boys and girls.
100% true, but browbeating does not constitute debate IMO.
Maybe there'd be a little less browbeating if those whose opinions are being legitimately questioned acknowledged the challenges and addressed them instead of happily ignoring them and posting the same nonsense again.
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2012, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on February 10, 2012, 04:09:05 PM
There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be. It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.
Hold on a minute there. No one is captive here. No one is being forced to post or read the discussion. But if you offer up your opinion in a public forum like this you are not entitled to not have it challenged. If challenges to your opinions upset you, then don't post them.
Slow down there!! Where have I said challenging an opinion is wrong? The past 6/7 posts on this thread sum up exactly what way the debate shoud progress, it is the sniping at other posters for their beliefs/views without proper debate that annoys me.
Quote from: seafoid on February 10, 2012, 05:04:07 PM
Iceman
How would your health insurance compromise your religious beliefs ? I have no clue what you mean on this.
US health insurance is such a car crash. You mentioned a couple of thousand dollars a month. It isn't Christian to change people that sort of money.
His health insurance offers contraception, and abortion - I think is the issue.
Quote from: seafoid on February 10, 2012, 04:17:19 PM
What about the environment dudes?
Forget about the middle east, the war on the environment is one which we are definitely winning.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
But convictions sent men we all know to war. Many Irish men and women who picked up a gun in defense of their country, or who starved themselves to death in a prison cell, did so based on convictions. They choose what they held sacred over their families.
Jesus wept! ::)
Quote from: Doogie Browser on February 10, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2012, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on February 10, 2012, 04:09:05 PM
There is a degree of bullying on this thread, subtle as it may be. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how ridiculous others consider it to be. It is the joy of anonymous posting FFS.
Hold on a minute there. No one is captive here. No one is being forced to post or read the discussion. But if you offer up your opinion in a public forum like this you are not entitled to not have it challenged. If challenges to your opinions upset you, then don't post them.
Slow down there!! Where have I said challenging an opinion is wrong? The past 6/7 posts on this thread sum up exactly what way the debate shoud progress, it is the sniping at other posters for their beliefs/views without proper debate that annoys me.
Well I'm not sure what you're referring to then as the overall tone of this discussion has been pretty mild.
Quote from: EC Unique on February 10, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
If we take God out of the equation, do we believe in nature? Nature obviously designed children to be created by the coming together of a man and a woman, not a man and another man of woman and another woman.
Glad you brought that up. Homosexual behaviour is well documented in nature in hundreds of species. Same sex couples raising offspring has also been observed.
Next question.
I hate to join the game so late in the second half, especially a game with so many layers—gay marriage, gay adoption, healthcare coverage issues.
Still, maybe somebody can clear things up a bit for me. If a healthcare plan provides coverage for contraception and abortion, and a Catholic institution is providing that plan, where's the dilemma. Can't that church have faith that its Catholic members will simply not avail themselves of those services, and instead will adhere to the tenets of that church?
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 10, 2012, 05:22:52 PM
I hate to join the game so late in the second half, especially a game with so many layers—gay marriage, gay adoption, healthcare coverage issues.
Still, maybe somebody can clear things up a bit for me. If a healthcare plan provides coverage for contraception and abortion, and a Catholic institution is providing that plan, where's the dilemma. Can't that church have faith that its Catholic members will simply not avail themselves of those services, and instead will adhere to the tenets of that church?
True. Healthcare coverage is compensation for work. Do they stop employees spending the wage part of their compensation on those things?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 09, 2012, 09:22:10 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 07:18:27 PM
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.
It was not me that brought alcoholics/abusers into discussion but another poster...
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 09, 2012, 09:34:49 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 09, 2012, 08:35:31 PM
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on February 09, 2012, 08:24:53 PM
Influences that would be potentially missing through the lack of one sex in this case can be compensated in various other ways e.g. help from family members, teachers, sports coaches etc.
Doesn't wash with me.
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?
That is a variable of which you can have no control over, which is totally different from adoption. I hardly see it ideal as approving a same-sex adoption on the basis that Uncle Jimmy will take care of the 'daddy stuff' and Coach Carter will do his bit regards sports, physical exercise etc. Ideally an adopted child should not have to look elsewhere from their home for these missing influences.
Ideally you need a father figure and a mother figure. I don't care what anyone says, that is the ideal scenario. You cannot compensate for a mother's love nor can you compensate for a father's love.
If a child has has two mums, they still don't have a dad no matter how many uncles, coaches, male role models they may have in their life. The same applies if the child has two dads.
This view may appear narrow-minded, ignorant, discriminatory etc etc. but nothing posted on this thread yet has persuaded me otherwise.
Quote from: heganboy on February 10, 2012, 12:15:56 PM
this thread cracks me up
just for the non PC Brigade, are you aware that the whole idea that a "family" as you define it, i.e. parents of opposite sex and their kids only became a viable entity in the late 16th century? and actually only became commonplace 150 years later? The raising of children before that was done by an extended circle including extended family and neighbors and various other "elders" in the community...
Care to hazard a guess as to why the 'traditional' family structure that the non-PC Brigade subscribe to has been so widespread ever since?
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 10, 2012, 05:43:27 PM
That is a variable of which you can have no control over, which is totally different from adoption. I hardly see it ideal as approving a same-sex adoption on the basis that Uncle Jimmy will take care of the 'daddy stuff' and Coach Carter will do his bit regards sports, physical exercise etc. Ideally an adopted child should not have to look elsewhere from their home for these missing influences.
So should a child not be placed with a hetero couple if the father doesnt like sport? this is getting confusing....
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
Iceman - I dont know if im reading this right - theres a lot going on in this thread.
Are you saying you would refuse the subsidized healthcare if there was an OPTION within the package for abortion etc?
And if so - if you had a sick child you would put that conviction ahead of them?
Quote from: nifan on February 10, 2012, 05:51:15 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 10, 2012, 05:43:27 PM
That is a variable of which you can have no control over, which is totally different from adoption. I hardly see it ideal as approving a same-sex adoption on the basis that Uncle Jimmy will take care of the 'daddy stuff' and Coach Carter will do his bit regards sports, physical exercise etc. Ideally an adopted child should not have to look elsewhere from their home for these missing influences.
So should a child not be placed with a hetero couple if the father doesnt like sport? this is getting confusing....
I am using sport as a loose example of what would constitute a father's influence; which would more than likely be missing when (for example) two lesbians adopted a wee fella.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith.
I find this chilling and it's why blind faith scares the hell out of me.
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 10, 2012, 05:59:45 PM
Quote from: nifan on February 10, 2012, 05:51:15 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on February 10, 2012, 05:43:27 PM
That is a variable of which you can have no control over, which is totally different from adoption. I hardly see it ideal as approving a same-sex adoption on the basis that Uncle Jimmy will take care of the 'daddy stuff' and Coach Carter will do his bit regards sports, physical exercise etc. Ideally an adopted child should not have to look elsewhere from their home for these missing influences.
So should a child not be placed with a hetero couple if the father doesnt like sport? this is getting confusing....
I am using sport as a loose example of what would constitute a father's influence; which would more than likely be missing when (for example) two lesbians adopted a wee fella.
Well it's too loose. As nifan said, what if the father doesn't like sport? And what evidence is there that lesbians don't like sport?
Give us a list of the things that
only a father/man can provide. And i'd expect these things to be fairly critical in the raising of a child.
Quote from: Hardy on February 10, 2012, 06:09:11 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith.
I find this chilling and it's why blind faith scares the hell out of me.
That's called being a fundamentalist.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2012, 06:10:21 PM
And what evidence is there that lesbians don't like sport?
Is it wrong to find this funny? :)
lol - 17 pages on ad nauseum gay marriage debate. :D way to waste your time folks. and half of you just in it for the sake of debate as well ;D
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 10, 2012, 06:33:03 PM
lol - 17 pages on ad nauseum gay marriage debate. :D way to waste your time folks. and half of you just in it for the sake of debate as well ;D
Surely posting on a thread that you're not interested in is an even bigger waste of time.
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 10, 2012, 06:33:03 PM
lol - 17 pages on ad nauseum gay marriage debate. :D way to waste your time folks. and half of you just in it for the sake of debate as well ;D
Challenging unsupported and ill--considered views that affect the rights and well-being of others is never a waste of time.
What bugs me about the whole thing is that you can get away with all manner of bigotry and discrimination as long as you practice such things in the name of religion. Religion is played like some sort of trump card or get-out-of-jail card. And I see today that Obama has caved in to the Catholic "we want to discriminate" lobby for that very reason. Shameful. Utterly shameful.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
As a man of little faith i have to say i admire your faith but can't understand how anything is ahead of one's family. That term seems American as i rarely hear it said here.
Quote from: J70 on February 10, 2012, 06:48:48 PM
Quote from: whiskeysteve on February 10, 2012, 06:33:03 PM
lol - 17 pages on ad nauseum gay marriage debate. :D way to waste your time folks. and half of you just in it for the sake of debate as well ;D
Challenging unsupported and ill--considered views that affect the rights and well-being of others is never a waste of time.
Battlefield GAAboard :D
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 10, 2012, 06:56:01 PM
What bugs me about the whole thing is that you can get away with all manner of bigotry and discrimination as long as you practice such things in the name of religion. Religion is played like some sort of trump card or get-out-of-jail card. And I see today that Obama has caved in to the Catholic "we want to discriminate" lobby for that very reason. Shameful. Utterly shameful.
Absolutely.
I understand why he did cave though. You have to pick your fights, especially when faced with a virulently hostile and irrational opposition and a media who will hype every little issue into a life or death struggle. This fight just wasn't worth spending any more political capital on.
This topic involves so many different and intersecting threads that by the time we're done we should have a lovely quilt in a rainbow of wonderful colors.
Just wondering how, as social mores evolve, social conservatives will feel when gay marriage and adoption by gays become commonplace? Will they feel embarrassed as some current conservatives surely must who ardently opposed civil rights legislation in the 60s?
Quote from: Oraisteach on February 10, 2012, 07:39:40 PM
This topic involves so many different and intersecting threads that by the time we're done we should have a lovely quilt in a rainbow of wonderful colors.
:)
This thread is great.
Iceman, the Christian who poisons cats, would choose his faith over his family and I can't wait to hear his answer to Nifan's question.
Fitzroyalty seems to think no one but fathers like sport.
EC, the person who describes himself as "mildly racist", has a picture of a black player who was recently the victim of racist abuse as his avatar.
The biggest surprise of all though, mike sheehy made the best point in the thread:
QuoteGiven all thats gone on in the last few years we should probably be questioning the parenting abilities of the uber-"christians" instead of gay people. It was the traditionally married flock,and not gays, that turned a blind eye while the Magdelen beasts and fiddling priests had their wicked way. Some "suitable" environment that created for children
Then again, I suppose that is what god intended.
Quote from: nifan on February 10, 2012, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
Iceman - I dont know if im reading this right - theres a lot going on in this thread.
Are you saying you would refuse the subsidized healthcare if there was an OPTION within the package for abortion etc?
And if so - if you had a sick child you would put that conviction ahead of them?
I would end up paying for the sick child out of pocket or find coverage that was suitable.
Sorry if this is an anti climax for you Pints.
Why don't you get involved intelligently in the conversation Pints instead of giving your play by play commentary.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 08:21:23 PM
Quote from: nifan on February 10, 2012, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
Iceman - I dont know if im reading this right - theres a lot going on in this thread.
Are you saying you would refuse the subsidized healthcare if there was an OPTION within the package for abortion etc?
And if so - if you had a sick child you would put that conviction ahead of them?
I would end up paying for the sick child out of pocket or find coverage that was suitable.
Sorry if this is an anti climax for you Pints.
Why don't you get involved intelligently in the conversation Pints instead of giving your play by play commentary.
I hate to break this news to you Iceman but you are already paying for abortions.
http://www.fundabortionnow.org/get-help/medicaid#NJ
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 08:21:23 PM
Quote from: nifan on February 10, 2012, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
Iceman - I dont know if im reading this right - theres a lot going on in this thread.
Are you saying you would refuse the subsidized healthcare if there was an OPTION within the package for abortion etc?
And if so - if you had a sick child you would put that conviction ahead of them?
I would end up paying for the sick child out of pocket or find coverage that was suitable.
So you
can afford an alternative.
It would cripple us Maguire, like i said. Coverage out of pocket is $2000 per month roughly and medical bills can run into the 100's of thousands.
Not saying we have that kind of money but if push came to shove I could figure something out.
Being able to afford something and being forced to sell everything you own to buy something are two different things.
But keep twisting words......
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 08:54:53 PM
It would cripple us Maguire, like i said. Coverage out of pocket is $2000 per month roughly and medical bills can run into the 100's of thousands.
Not saying we have that kind of money but if push came to shove I could figure something out.
Being able to afford something and being forced to sell everything you own to buy something are two different things.
But keep twisting words......
Ah, you can see my posts. That's good.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 08:54:53 PM
It would cripple us Maguire, like i said. Coverage out of pocket is $2000 per month roughly and medical bills can run into the 100's of thousands.
Not saying we have that kind of money but if push came to shove I could figure something out.
Being able to afford something and being forced to sell everything you own to buy something are two different things.
But keep twisting words......
Figure something out?
What... like go bankrupt?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2012, 09:18:17 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 08:54:53 PM
It would cripple us Maguire, like i said. Coverage out of pocket is $2000 per month roughly and medical bills can run into the 100's of thousands.
Not saying we have that kind of money but if push came to shove I could figure something out.
Being able to afford something and being forced to sell everything you own to buy something are two different things.
But keep twisting words......
Ah, you can see my posts. That's good.
Let me get that dummy tit off the floor for you there.
I scrolled back four pages to see the post about the cats you were pouting over - different conversation, different thread.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 09:34:05 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 10, 2012, 09:18:17 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 08:54:53 PM
It would cripple us Maguire, like i said. Coverage out of pocket is $2000 per month roughly and medical bills can run into the 100's of thousands.
Not saying we have that kind of money but if push came to shove I could figure something out.
Being able to afford something and being forced to sell everything you own to buy something are two different things.
But keep twisting words......
Ah, you can see my posts. That's good.
Let me get that dummy tit off the floor for you there.
I scrolled back four pages to see the post about the cats you were pouting over - different conversation, different thread.
Dummy?
As for the 'cats' - different thread maybe, but as you're basing your whole argument here on your need to be true to your religious beliefs... well I just don't understand how your cat killing actions reconcile with this. It appears to be picking and choosing the bits of religion that suit your argument.
Although it wasn't just that post I was referring two - you avoided another few as well.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 10, 2012, 08:08:26 PM
This thread is great.
Iceman, the Christian who poisons cats, would choose his faith over his family and I can't wait to hear his answer to Nifan's question.
Fitzroyalty seems to think no one but fathers like sport.
EC, the person who describes himself as "mildly racist", has a picture of a black player who was recently the victim of racist abuse as his avatar.
The biggest surprise of all though, mike sheehy made the best point in the thread:
QuoteGiven all thats gone on in the last few years we should probably be questioning the parenting abilities of the uber-"christians" instead of gay people. It was the traditionally married flock,and not gays, that turned a blind eye while the Magdelen beasts and fiddling priests had their wicked way. Some "suitable" environment that created for children
Then again, I suppose that is what god intended.
No surprise. In the moral vacuum of this board even the basic idealist can be king.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith.
Well this is the best argument for many Homosexuals being better parents than quite a few Christians/Religious I have heard in a long time.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 11, 2012, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith.
Well this is the best argument for many Homosexuals being better parents than quite a few Christians/Religious I have heard in a long time.
Do you have any convictions? Like the example I thought some might relate to in a previous post of taking up a gun to defend your country. That's choosing something else over your family? You have made no secret of your political views, would you fight for your country and walk away from your family?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on February 11, 2012, 08:56:20 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 10, 2012, 08:08:26 PM
This thread is great.
Iceman, the Christian who poisons cats, would choose his faith over his family and I can't wait to hear his answer to Nifan's question.
Fitzroyalty seems to think no one but fathers like sport.
EC, the person who describes himself as "mildly racist", has a picture of a black player who was recently the victim of racist abuse as his avatar.
The biggest surprise of all though, mike sheehy made the best point in the thread:
QuoteGiven all thats gone on in the last few years we should probably be questioning the parenting abilities of the uber-"christians" instead of gay people. It was the traditionally married flock,and not gays, that turned a blind eye while the Magdelen beasts and fiddling priests had their wicked way. Some "suitable" environment that created for children
Then again, I suppose that is what god intended.
No surprise. In the moral vacuum of this board even the basic idealist can be king.
That is low even by your standards.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2012, 04:51:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 11, 2012, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith.
Well this is the best argument for many Homosexuals being better parents than quite a few Christians/Religious I have heard in a long time.
Do you have any convictions? Like the example I thought some might relate to in a previous post of taking up a gun to defend your country. That's choosing something else over your family? You have made no secret of your political views, would you fight for your country and walk away from your family?
Are you Lot reborn Iceman?
Thats answering a question with a question.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 12, 2012, 05:19:14 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2012, 12:10:26 AM
Thats answering a question with a question.
What is?
I think it was my post about Lot. The man who thought it was God's will to let his daughters be gang raped rather than let the boys of Sodom and Gomorrah have a go on one another. Lot had such convictions that it was better to have his daughters raped than God be insulted by some man-on-man action.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 11, 2012, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2012, 04:51:27 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on February 11, 2012, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith.
Well this is the best argument for many Homosexuals being better parents than quite a few Christians/Religious I have heard in a long time.
Do you have any convictions? Like the example I thought some might relate to in a previous post of taking up a gun to defend your country. That's choosing something else over your family? You have made no secret of your political views, would you fight for your country and walk away from your family?
Are you Lot reborn Iceman?
Religion, No Thankyou.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 10, 2012, 04:51:47 PM
Puck, If I unsubscribe from our current health plan in work and seek my own through something like Cobra we're talking a couple of thousand dollars a month. Already with subsidized healthcare through my job, my contributions are close to $600 per month. We are a single income family with two kids and one more on the way.
If I was faced between choosing between my faith and my family - hand on heart I'd have to choose my faith. My family wouldn't have me otherwise.
That may seem like a ridiculous statement but I really would and my family would support my decision.
But convictions sent men we all know to war. Many Irish men and women who picked up a gun in defense of their country, or who starved themselves to death in a prison cell, did so based on convictions. They choose what they held sacred over their families.
:o :o Well that is just bizarre and a bit disturbing. Not meaning to be insulting, but that sounds like something you hear about those cults and you just say to yourself "they're all stone mad sure". Scarier when it's someone who is obviously not insane.
So Tubberman, seeing as MOG wouldn't answer the question, perhaps you would entertain it:
Do you have any convictions? Like the example I thought some might relate to in a previous post of taking up a gun to defend your country. That's choosing something else over your family? You have made no secret of your political views, would you fight for your country and walk away from your family?
War is very real some fight in it to give there children a better life. As the saying goes If one person has an imaginary friend, they're crazy, if many people have The same imaginary friend it's religion.
Regardless if you believe in God or not, convictions are real and many people will choose things over their family.
QuoteRegardless if you believe in God or not, convictions are real and many people will choose things over their family.
My family are my first priority, and i dont even have kids of my own yet.
Some other views on the topic...
(http://nathan-lee.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/interracialvsGayMarriage.jpg)
(http://lolzombie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/lightbox.jpeg)
(http://zarconiphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/tumblr_lkon47JUbb1qz8jddo1_500.jpg)
Watch some You Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmprNdamNg
Quote from: heganboy on February 13, 2012, 01:04:46 PM
Some other views on the topic...
(http://nathan-lee.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/interracialvsGayMarriage.jpg)
(http://lolzombie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/lightbox.jpeg)
(http://zarconiphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/tumblr_lkon47JUbb1qz8jddo1_500.jpg)
That middle one is gas! Its on the FDR beside the Brooklyn Bridge and is actually an ad for a storage space rental company! :D
I wonder how those who would ban gay marriage or adoption etc would react to this situation (below), where we have a child born following the introduction of male semen to a female womb?
Like, I mean, the parents have got to be heterosexual for pregnancy to have taken place, so that's got to be OK, right?
Sex change man gives birth in Britain
London, Feb 13 2012:
A British woman, who had a sex change surgery, is believed to have become Britain's first "male mother".
The man, whose womb was not removed during the original sex change operation, became only the third man in world to have done this, he has become the country's first and world's third "male mother".
The man, who is in his 30s, gave birth last year after having hormone treatment to reactivate his womb but the story was confirmed recently, the Mail Online reported.
(More in http://truthdive.com/2012/02/13/male-mother-sex-change-man-gives-birth-in-britain.html )
Its been happening in the states for yonks.
From Wiki.
For example, Matt Rice, a transgender man, bore a son named Blake in October 1999 [14] following random sperm donations from three male friends[15] during his relationship with transgender writer Patrick Califia.[15]
Thomas Beatie, another transgender man, has borne three children. He chose to become pregnant because his wife Nancy was infertile, doing so with cryogenic donated sperm and a syringe, at home. He wrote an article about the experience in The Advocate.[13] The Washington Post further broadened the story on March 25 when blogger Emil Steiner called Beatie the first "legally" pregnant man on record,[16] in reference to certain states' and federal legal recognition of Beatie as a man.[12][13] In 2010, Guinness World Records recognized Beatie as the world's "First Married Man to Give Birth."[17] Beatie gave birth to a girl named Susan Juliette Beatie on June 29, 2008.[18][19] Barbara Walters announced Beatie's second pregnancy on The View,[20] and Beatie gave birth to a boy named Austin Alexander Beatie on June 9, 2009.[21] Beatie gave birth to his third child, a boy named Jensen James Beatie, on July 25, 2010.[22]
Scott Moore, a transgender man, gave birth to a child on March 9, 2010.[23]
Yuval Topper, Israeli transgender man, gave birth to a child on December 28, 2011
I see Nicholas Sarzcozy is now running a re-election campaign with an anti-gay marriage stance. Funnily enough he was pro-gay marriage when he won last time.
The difference this time being he has to compete against a surge by right wingers Le Front National headed by Marine Le Pen.
Just goes to show what a man of principal he is.
This is absolutely disgraceful, why is the activities of trans gender people being introduced into a debate on gay marriage. These are seperate issues. The rights of gay couples should not becompared with those of trans gender people any more tahn they should be linked with child abuse.
ive no problem letting gay and lessies getting married,if they want to be as miserable and sexless as any straight couple that gets married then good luck to them.i hope they dont turn out like iceman thou
Quote from: The Iceman on February 13, 2012, 02:27:07 AM
Regardless if you believe in God or not, convictions are real and many people will choose things over their family.
Drug addicts do that alot. Quite a few of them have convictions.
You choose the queens pound over your family MOG, and I'm sure you have plenty of convictions.....
I love gay marriages. I think what people don't like is the next morning after a gay wedding reception. I've been to some where the guests have nearly thrown up looking at their breakfast sausage as it was a stark reminder of what happened in the marital bed that night. I have shouted at loads of these people who have refused to eat or even choose sausages for breakfast. I know what they're thinking and I let rip at their homophobia.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 13, 2012, 02:27:07 AM
Regardless if you believe in God or not, convictions are real and many people will choose things over their family.
So would a gay couple without other convictions, who would put children first, not be better parents than a straight couple for whom their children are not their first priority?
I don't understand the equivalency of religion and war in terms of prioritizing over your family. War (leaving out the geopolitical aspects) is at least defensible in the sense that you might be fighting against something that actually threatens your family's well-being. How one could choose a hypothetical magical being over one's flesh and blood loved ones is just mind-boggling however!
Quote from: J70 on February 14, 2012, 04:36:53 PM
I don't understand the equivalency of religion and war in terms of prioritizing over your family. War (leaving out the geopolitical aspects) is at least defensible in the sense that you might be fighting against something that actually threatens your family's well-being. How one could choose a hypothetical magical being over one's flesh and blood loved ones is just mind-boggling however!
Maybe because God is not a hypothetical magical being.
I don't think thats hard to understand
Quote from: The Iceman on February 14, 2012, 02:02:16 PM
You choose the queens pound over your family MOG, and I'm sure you have plenty of convictions.....
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
You make me sound like I abandoned a good Catholic brood of 24 childers and the missus or I moved out and left poor Mammy and Daddy with nothing to do now that they cannot mammy over me like all good Catholic mothers.
I moved to England because adults get to move away from home ;)
Then again you still have imaginary friends 8)
Quote from: The Iceman on February 14, 2012, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 14, 2012, 04:36:53 PM
I don't understand the equivalency of religion and war in terms of prioritizing over your family. War (leaving out the geopolitical aspects) is at least defensible in the sense that you might be fighting against something that actually threatens your family's well-being. How one could choose a hypothetical magical being over one's flesh and blood loved ones is just mind-boggling however!
Maybe because God is not a hypothetical magical being.
I don't think thats hard to understand
You have a wonderful sense of humour, I'll give ya that.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 14, 2012, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 14, 2012, 04:36:53 PM
I don't understand the equivalency of religion and war in terms of prioritizing over your family. War (leaving out the geopolitical aspects) is at least defensible in the sense that you might be fighting against something that actually threatens your family's well-being. How one could choose a hypothetical magical being over one's flesh and blood loved ones is just mind-boggling however!
Maybe because God is not a hypothetical magical being.
I don't think thats hard to understand
Sorry Iceman, gods are something that might be. There is no evidence for them. They're completely faith-based beings dreamed up by numerous societies over millenia to serve as moral guides (for better or worse) and to explain contemporary unknowns with respect to nature.
I understand you're convinced of the existence of the christian god. However, its still faith. You don't know whether he or she or it actually exists.
Whereas a war that threatens your family and civilization is real and verifiable.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 14, 2012, 02:02:16 PM
You choose the queens pound over your family MOG, and I'm sure you have plenty of convictions.....
Is everyone who emigrates choosing the pound/dollar etc over their family?
What about people who migrate?
Just wondering