Pride Debate - civil marriage vs. civil partnerships

[Universal_001]

I never thought I'd hear someone justify a gay quota.
It's hard enough to justify them on race and class, but sexuality?
Does every group thats been opressed get a quota? Dont' think an entire subgroup of people skipping the que based on nothing other than they are them, fuels ...rather than ends resentment towards them>

[Zendik]

I never thought I'd hear someone justify a gay quota.
It's hard enough to justify them on race and class, but sexuality?
Does every group thats been opressed get a quota? Dont' think an entire subgroup of people skipping the que based on nothing other than they are them, fuels ...rather than ends resentment towards them>

Well, apparently the simple act of parading flamboyantly through town on a Sunday afternoon can fuel resentment. It doesn't mean it's wrong or should be avoided, just that some people are stupid and easily moved to resentment. There is a number of quite good reasons for gay quotas in the Gardai, all of which I'm sure are obvious to you. You seem to have decided that the one way to be happy as a gay person is to be one step more homophobic than the homophobes, so I'm not going to worry about your misgivings too much.

[Milton Fine]

I most certainly do not agree with the adoption of children by homosexuals. And how dare you claim my views are a result of ignorance.

What is needed is less liberal policies towards homosexuals...a ban on homosexuals teaching or coaching children so they cannot infuse children with their bizarre views on life.
A ban on homosexuals in the army, gardai and the fire service as the lack of trust most heterosexual men would have for them would create problems.
A ban on children attending events like the ironically named "gay pride" event...children should be nowhere near such a gathering of trannies and promiscuous predators.

Somebody need to shout "No More" and it may as well be me. I agree with the decriminalising of homosexuality and the granting of civil partnership rights but it should be handled in a different way. Because of the promiscuity and health issues, homosexuals should have to register their relationship with the Gardai and only be allowed form a civil partnership after 3 years registration.

Some may find my attitudes controversial, but I believe there are two great threats to our nation. Socially, homosexuals are seeking to undermine all of our lives and the institutions we hold dear. Politically, Sinn Fein/IRA represent the greatest threat. That is why I choose to tackle both issues when I get the chance.

[stringjack]

I never thought I'd hear someone justify a gay quota.
It's hard enough to justify them on race and class, but sexuality?
Does every group thats been opressed get a quota? Dont' think an entire subgroup of people skipping the que based on nothing other than they are them, fuels ...rather than ends resentment towards them>

You're conflating two distinct forms of quota systems. The first aims to correct an injustice that has existed historically; the point is that a particular group has been excluded from, for example, a profession, and the quota is designed to privilege applicants from the excluded group in order to redress the balance. The second form of quota system is different; it notes that, for example, a particular profession is hindered in its activities by the absence of certain skills, talents or perspectives. The profession attempts to fill this gap in its capabilities by privileging applicants which have the required skills, talents or perspectives. The justifications for using each of the two forms of quota system are quite different.

[stringjack]

I most certainly do not agree with the adoption of children by homosexuals. And how dare you claim my views are a result of ignorance.

You were quite surprised to discover that you supported gay adoption the first time, too.

[returning officer]

I never thought I'd hear someone justify a gay quota.
It's hard enough to justify them on race and class, but sexuality?
Does every group thats been opressed get a quota? Dont' think an entire subgroup of people skipping the que based on nothing other than they are them, fuels ...rather than ends resentment towards them>

This is what gay activism is all about. Keep creating rows/disunity. Separation. A good row leads to interest and that leads to funding - either private or state. The criticims levelled against the Poverty Industry can be multiplied for these NGOs.

Many gay goups did fight a very difficult and courageous battle to have the law changed in 1993, 1998 and 2000. David Norris obviously stands out above all others. But the law has now changed. I cannot be sacked from my job because I am gay - either due to legislation to my trade union policy. Any gay man can book into any hotel in the State without fear when they ask for a double-bed with another male. No service/supplier can discriminate against me- bar a few other protected groups ie religious to mainatain their ethos (used successfully by 6 CoI schools against the Dept of Education).

The last big battle is state recognition for same-sex couples. That is in the programe for government. Its form will have to be seen. It need not make any reference to Adoption - why should it? Marriage/civil partnership is recognition by the State of a relationship between two adults, who make a commitment to each which cannot dissolved by anything but a Court after 4 years. Let the issue of the right to make a joint application to be considered for an adoption bill, produced after the Children's right referendum has passed.

I appreciate that Zendik is sincere, but he is a misguided zealout. He thinks he is of another time when civil rights could not be taken for granted - they can now and are deeply imbeded enough to be secure. I should repay him the courtesy of a detailed reply (as he has done to me), but any further dialogue with him is like a gay marriage itself - fruitless.

[Milton Fine]

I most certainly do not agree with the adoption of children by homosexuals. And how dare you claim my views are a result of ignorance.

You were quite surprised to discover that you supported gay adoption the first time, too.

What the f..k are you talking about?

[Universal_001]

It doesn't mean it's wrong or should be avoided, just that some people are stupid and easily moved to resentment.

I think it should be avoided, wrongs a bit much, counterproductive would be more appropriate.
Yes some people are stupid in their resentment, and highlighting (and/or just plan inventing) (mostly artificial) differences and separations is not going to make those people see sense, going on with life normally is.

There is a number of quite good reasons for gay quotas in the Gardai, all of which I'm sure are obvious to you. You seem to have decided that the one way to be happy as a gay person is to be one step more homophobic than the homophobes, so I'm not going to worry about your misgivings too much.

How do you define homophobia as a matter of interest? you seem to think anyone who disagrees with your approach to equality is homophobic or self hating. For the record I'm opposed to the idea of affirmative action generally for anyone who can compete equally with everyone else (I'm open to it for disabled or special needs people as your not comparing like with like), AA is dealing with the symptoms not the cause, and contributes to the cause by giving the perception of this hated group getting an advantage.

After a long discussion you still don't understand what I'm saying, I think the way to be happy as a gay person is to get on with life as normal and challenge homophobia as you find it, not to create more barriers.

You're conflating two distinct forms of quota systems. The first aims to correct an injustice that has existed historically; the point is that a particular group has been excluded from, for example, a profession, and the quota is designed to privilege applicants from the excluded group in order to redress the balance. The second form of quota system is different; it notes that, for example, a particular profession is hindered in its activities by the absence of certain skills, talents or perspectives. The profession attempts to fill this gap in its capabilities by privileging applicants which have the required skills, talents or perspectives. The justifications for using each of the two forms of quota system are quite different.

The effect is the same, nobody is stopping gay people from joining the police, or anyone else for that matter.

[Zendik]

I appreciate that Zendik is sincere, but he is a misguided zealout. He thinks he is of another time when civil rights could not be taken for granted - they can now and are deeply imbeded enough to be secure. I should repay him the courtesy of a detailed reply (as he has done to me), but any further dialogue with him is like a gay marriage itself - fruitless.

That gives me the last word then - excellent. You have not responded to the substance of my argument, choosing rather to characterise me, and then dismiss me ad hominem on the basis of your own characterisation. Such a twice-over compound fallacy is a rare thing to see. Consider your last post steeped in formaldehyde and pinned to the cork board of the feeble gambits collection. Anyway, I will take it that my arguments are beyond your ability to refute, and that they are stronger than yours. My position is more logical.

If supporting movements that seek to bring actual equality and combat widespread prejudice that still ruins peoples lives is zealous, then I am a zealot. You are happy with the current level of reform, others are not. Get your civil partnership, while others continue to maintain that we deserve the same as everyone else. Rather than an alternative.

Part of the problem of growing up isolated from others like ourselves until later in life is that many of us absorb the attitudes and intolerances of society around us. Gay people have a greater incentive to understand and propound liberalism than most others, but there is no guarantee that they will be able to, or that they will adopt liberal attitudes any more than it is necessary for them to feel comfortable with themselves. Just as people like Milton and Bobb and White Horse just don't get it - neither do you. You are forced into a moderate level of liberalism, so that you don't quite hate yourself, but you don't have the moral strength or intellectual integrity to complete the project. And so yes, this discussion is doomed to fruitlessness, but I am satisfied that I have tried for my part.

[stringjack]

[quote=Milton Fine]

I most certainly do not agree with the adoption of children by homosexuals. And how dare you claim my views are a result of ignorance.

You were quite surprised to discover that you supported gay adoption the first time, too.

What the f..k are you talking about?[/quote:32ui5qtx]

See this thread:

[quote=Milton Fine]

I have said that homosexual couple should be allowed to apply to become adoptive parents. I say so on the basis that one's sexuality is irrelevent to one's ability to act as a supportive and loving parent. While priority should be given to multi-gender couples, adoption by a homosexual couple is preferrable (in my opinion) to the institutionalised care of a child.

Having said that, I am concerned at the academic studies being referred to in this thread which suggest a greater propensity among homosexuals to abuse children. I don't know if these assertions are correct or not. However, they do merit close follow up.

I also have said that the primary motivation of the state to recognise marriage is to provide a stable environment for the upbringing of children. If it were not for this fact, the State would have no need to become involved in the personal relationships of it's citizens.

Stringjack asked the very logical questionas to whether the State should not confer the same rights and responsibilities upon a homosexual couple who adopted a child.

The answer the that question is no. No new life is created by a homosexual couple. While in theory, pre-existing children may be cared for by homosexual couples, they do not provide the means whereby the State continues to exist.

As men and women share the ability to create new life, the State confers upon them all the option of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. No doubt some posters will trot put the old chesnut of infertile couples as if anyone would wish the government to institute the Orwellian practice of peering inside a woman's ovaries.

Good post White Horse...I agree that under certain conditions homosexuals should be allowed adopt children. A homosexual could adopt his/her nephews or nieces if the parents died for example. But a male/female couple will always and should always be preferable.

And if you read the various articles you'd see what these sinister undertones are.[/quote:32ui5qtx]