UI
1. Where I live gay marriage is the law - and I am in favour of it. No ersatz civil union either.
2. Nobody has the right to adopt - but gay couples should not be the right to apply (or indeed, gay singles).
3. I'd prefer them gay and happy rather than living a lie and miserable
4. Again, Canada has and has had openly gay MPs. The sky has not fallen.
As for "kids need a ma and a pa" - so are you proposing to take kids off single mums, like in the times of the Magdalen laundries?
Mark
"As for "kids need a ma and a pa" - so are you proposing to take kids off single mums, like in the times of the Magdalen laundries?"
I'm proposing that we don't place children into a bizarre, second-rate imitation of the traditional family unit.
Some mothers find themselves the victims of circumstance. The important thing is that we don't make the kids victims of circumstance by putting them into an alternative family unit.
And with that I'm off to bed. Oiche mhaith. 
The problem is this: many heterosexual marriages are in name only - they are loveless or violent. Your prescription favours this household over one single person or two same sex people who are loving and caring. To simply prescribe as such denies children *the best possible outcome for them*.
1. In favour.
2. Not in favour at this time. I also think the traditional family unit is the ideal.
3. Impossible to say until it happened. I hope I wouldn't have a problem with it.
4. I don't think it would make any difference.
1. No, gay marriage should not be encouraged.
2. Never! A gay marriage is not somewhere I'd want any kid to be introduced to life.
3. Yes, I'd be ucomfortable and I'd want better for him/her, but I'd love him/her no less.
4. If the TD's/MP's voting and campaigning tactics were not majorly affected I'd still support him/her.
At the end of the day, UI, homosexuality has been seen to attract God's anger and judgement. It's just not worth the risk. And human bodies clearly weren't built for it (no lubrication, etc.). BU.
Sometimes I really have to wonder...
How exactly is homosexuality unnatural? People are born gay. they are not altered to be made gay. therefore it is natural.
Animals can be gay. Therefore it is natural.
As for your questions:
1. What if some form of gay marriage was made law? Would you be in favour of this?
yes.
2. What if there was a desire to allow gay couples to adopt? Would you be in favour of this?
Yes.
3. What if you found out you had a gay family member, for example your son or daughter? Would this make you uncomfortable?
If it was my son or daughter, very uncomfortable as I'd have to wonder where this child appeared from 
But another member of my family. I hope not.
4. What if a TD you supported turned out to be gay? Would this affect your decision to back him/her?
I don't really support any TD, and if one came out as gay it wouldn't make me support them any more, or any less than I already did.
" the one issue that troubles me is the issue of gay adoption. "
Why? Are you gay? No, youre not.
Are you going to be in a gay relationship? No, unlikely.
Are you going to be in a gay relationship involving adoption? Again, no.
So why are worried? Shouldnt you be worried about hetero couples who chain smoke in the same room as their child or fight in front of their child?
.................
Answering your questions:
1. What if some form of gay marriage was made law? Would you be in favour of this?
Of course, all citizens of the state are entitled to equality of treatment before the law.
2. What if there was a desire to allow gay couples to adopt? Would you be in favour of this?
Yes, absolutely. Having a gay dad or mum doesnt mean that the child will be gay at all, except they might possibly be more tolerant of different sexuality, in the same way as having parents of different religigons here in the north works towards eliminating sectarianism.
3. What if you found out you had a gay family member, for example your son or daughter? Would this make you uncomfortable?
Not at all. I wouldnt not love my daughter any less if she turns out to be lesbian. Only someone without a child could think any differently.
4. What if a TD you supported turned out to be gay? Would this affect your decision to back him/her?
Absolutely not. I would endorse them more wholeheartedly than previously.
1. What if some form of gay marriage was made law? Would you be in favour of this?
Yes, but it should be full marriage, not a watered down "civil partnership"
2. What if there was a desire to allow gay couples to adopt? Would you be in favour of this?
Yes, completely.
3. What if you found out you had a gay family member, for example your son or daughter? Would this make you uncomfortable?
Absolutely not.
4. What if a TD you supported turned out to be gay? Would this affect your decision to back him/her?
No I'd either still hate them or still tolerate them. I don't support any particular TD... although I would if those short sighted tipperary fuckers had elected Martin Mansergh
Some issues that I think need addressing:
1. Posting sociological research is...well..easy. And doesn't necessarily reflect any sort of truth. One can just as easily find and post an argument towards the contrary.
2. As for the gays being unnatural? Well, the last time I checked, I wasn't spawned in a lab, or taken from a tin can. I'm confused as to which part you find abnormal. Also: 'bizarre, second-rate imitation of the traditional family unit'. Hilarious! You were referring to my parents, though, right?...
3. As for John the Ulsterman...I should start reading your blog because MAN you make me laugh! Using god as the crux of an argument? Classic! Real intelligent way to prove a point.
4. Asking how people would feel if a family member came out? Oh dear GOD, did I stumble into a time vortex and fall out somewhere in the 50s? Is this really how straight people spend their quality time, quizzing each other on how they'd feel if cousin Earl turned out to be a homo? What's next: 'How would you feel if your new neighbour turned out to be...(gasp!!) black?"
Please don't confuse any of the above with offense taken, or with bad feelings. I just find this whole thread, well, a bit unnatural.
This T-Shirt probably expresses most male attitudes...
John,
"homosexuality has been seen to attract God's anger and judgement. It's just not worth the risk"
LOL, I presume you have evidence of this!
1] Yes
2] Yes
3] Uncomfortable: I'd be more concerned for the feelings of the "gay family member" in a society that demands that they deny their "real selves".
4] No
1. What if some form of gay marriage was made law? Would you be in favour of this?
Yes. gay people are also human beings and have the same capacity and need to love and be loved as non gay people They only thing that is different, due to a fate in nature, is their attraction is to their same gender. This is not something that they can change. Sadly in most countries it is significantly harder for gay people to have relationships due to community and/or family hostility towards their relationships, or the lack of legal recognition. They lack what we take for granted – freedom, equality and justice. A states law should be for all its citizens not just a self imposed privilege class.
2. What if there was a desire to allow gay couples to adopt? Would you be in favour of this?
Yes. I think there is a lot of myths based on ignorance out there about the effect on children of having same sex caregivers, For many many years I have worked as a social worker. I have worked with hundreds of families. I can tell you that neither a marriage certificate nor the premise of being a “traditional” family guarantees any child will receive the level of care they need for their development. Parenting skills and being able to provide adequate care is a combination of factors and in my experience on average gay people have no less capacity for parenting than heterosexuals. Although some studies are stating to come out to show that children raised in same-sex households have been found to be less aggressive, more egalitarian in household responsibilities and their sexual orientation is no way effected by the gender of their caregivers.
I have meet many children raised in households by same sex parents – usually as the results of complaints to authorities by community members based on bigoted beliefs. In all the cases I was involved in I found the children to be extremely well cared for, loved, well adjusted and to have had strong bonds to both caregivers. It was actually intrusive and abusive that these children were made to go through child protection assessments just because of some bigoted neighbour or family member felt uncomfortable with the caregiver’s homosexuality. I haven’t found the same degree ob care in all the married or seemingly ‘traditional’ families I have been involved in. Nevertheless I am sure like heterosexuals there will be some parents who will not be safe caregivers for exactly the same reason as heterosexuals. Children need caregivers that can love them, nurture and provide for them. In my experience the caregiver(s) gender is well down the list of must haves for children.
One situation that was well known and talked about in a community I once lived in and related to old neighbours. This was a case where the biological parents of three young children were killed and the only ‘functional’ surviving family members were the mother’s gay brother and his same sex partner. They had lived together in a stable relationship f
"homosexuality has been seen to attract God's anger and judgement. It's just not worth the risk"
John, I believe you to be a good and caring person but the above does not sit easily with that image.
Homosexuals include women as well as men, while AIDS was cruelly seen as *Gods punishment for gays* the fact that lesbian women were amongst those safest from its spread must have said something about generalising on homosexual people.
Quite surprised by Big John's post ... can I assume you're taking the piss John or is this really how you feel?
"And human bodies clearly weren't built for it"
You sure?
John thinks gay people attract God's anger. These people think so too:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/21...s.ap/
index.html
also - if needing lube makes sex unnatural, a lot of straight people wouldn't get any "natural" sex either.
What do you mean that homesexuality is unnatural? Is it man-made? Is there a secret government sponsored genetic engineering conspiracy running amok that we're not aware of?
You know, this kind of "I love them but we all know they're evil unnatural freaks" rubbish really is beneath someone of your obvious intelligence.
(Apologies in advance for sounding like these comments are directed at the poster instead of the opinion expressed by the poster.)
Re: My comment about homoesxuality being unnatural, I'm referring to the fact that it is by man and woman coming together that reproducution occurs.
If back in the Stone Age people had decided to endorse homosexuality, we wouldn't all be sitting here discsussing this issue, would we?
Thus I think it's fair to say that heterosexuality is natural and regarding Fence's comment, some animals have homosexual tendencies but they by and large reproduce the way we do - through heterosexual sex.
You could be wrong about your stone age theory. You may actually have the homesexuals that have been punished and despised through histry to thank.
The fact is that homosexuality forms part of nature. There has been a stable small percentage of homosexuals throughout the history of humanity. Some recent interesting research out of Italy suggests that having a gay male child in the family significantly increases the fertility of the female siblings in the famly. Which is very good for the survival humanity. This was concluded after a large study of families with homesexuals in them.
Such scientific findings are of course threatening to people who like to use their simplistic "man fits into women well so homesexuals are unnatural" argument to support their bigotry.
Marion
"You could be wrong about your stone age theory. You may actually have the homesexuals that have been punished and despised through histry to thank."
Erm, what? I'm pretty sure if people in the Stone Age stopped their heterosexual humping that the human race would have died out.
"The fact is that homosexuality forms part of nature. There has been a stable small percentage of homosexuals throughout the history of humanity."
There have been evil human beings throughout history but that doesn't mean being evil is natural. (Note - This is just an example and I'm not suggesting homosexuals are evil)
"Some recent interesting research out of Italy suggests that having a gay male child in the family significantly increases the fertility of the female siblings in the famly. Which is very good for the survival humanity. This was concluded after a large study of families with homesexuals in them."
I find that research to be ridiculous. It doesnt make any sense. It suggests that a family who have a gay son will automatically end up having daughters. How is that to be determined? Have you a link for this study? I'd like to read about it more.
"Such scientific findings are of course threatening to people who like to use their simplistic "man fits into women well so homesexuals are unnatural" argument to support their bigotry"
So anyone who supports the traditional family unit is a bigot? LOL. Come on Marion, you can do better than that.
Throwing out the 'B' word is like throwing in the towel.
Love that last remark!
Do you have any opinion on why Ireland is turning away so fast from any semblance of traditional commitments?
Do Irish mothers dream of the day their daughters will become unwed mothers, and their sons father children with several different women in different parts of the country?
Hi Maggie,
I think there has definitely been a shift in thinking in Irish society in recent years away from traditional values and into a more liberal type of attitude.
My own opinion on this is that it stems from an antagonism towards the old Irish society and that it is thus a counter-reaction.
Ireland was too conservative in the past. That was the problem. The Catholic Church exerted too much of an influence. It was only in the nineties that both divorce and homosexuality were made legal here. It is a real shame that it took so long. It is my view that the more liberal attitudes expressed today are a way of making up for all that.
I don't think that's the solution though. I would argue the solution is to find a happy medium. Some of the things about Ireland's past were admirable. The traditional family unit being one, also the respect and tolerance of youth including the low crime rates plus a greater sense of morality.
I think liberal attitudes can be helpful but not in some areas. For example, I am not in favour of legalising abortion like some, I am also not in favour of allowing for gay adoption like some.
There is still a strong conservative element in Irish society though. Remember that only 51% of people in the recent poll favoured some form of gay marriage and opinion was split exactly 50:50 on gay adoption so it's a complex situation.
One wonders how it will pan out in the next few years.
1)I'm in favour of gay marriage, not a civil union.
2) Totally.
3)I would much rather my child be gay and loved than straight and beaten.
Am comfortable with current gay family members, not sure sexuality is an issue in determining who you converse with at family dinners.
4)I would support my chosen MP no matter their sexuality. My current MP is against same sex marriage, one of the many reasons she did not receive my vote.
Of course, UI, you could have just went back in time and read most of the opinions in your comments in posts from months ago.
In my humble opinion, UI is making a fundamental mistake in his argument as to why homosexuality is unnatural. Yes, it is true than a man a woman can reproduce naturally and that same sex couples can’t. However, the fatal flaw in this entire train of thought is that UI, like a lot of people, are confusing sex and love.
While using UI’s reasoning one might have to concede from an argumentative perspective that his argument may be valid in a gay sex context, it is a completely redundant argument when applied to the question of gay love. I think UI needs to re-examine this entire topic from the perspective of love and not from the typical simplistic male perspective of sex.
Once again in my humble opinion, I think if two people (regardless of their sex) are in love with each other then sex (in whatever form) is a “natural” expression of that love. (This is not to suggest that all sex is an expression of love, people can have sex in a purely lustful context, for example.) Therefore, constructing an argument from this perspective, one could quite reasonably propose that gay sex is as natural as heterosexual sex.
John - what is evil is subjective. For example I could possibly see lots of your posts as that of an evil man.
Regarding the research I mentioned. Lots of info on the net so have a look before you condem. You will need to open yout mind a bit though. The following is a brief snippet; "Homosexuality is a natural side-effect of genetic factors that help women to have more children, a study suggests. A team led by Prof Andrea Camperio-Ciani, of Padua University, found that female maternal relatives of homosexual men seemed to have more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. There was no difference with female paternal relatives".
Forgive me for being facetious, but as I read this thread the ad at the top says "Pink Limousine: Hot Pink Limousine, Pink Lino and the only Hot Pink Jeep in the UK"
Rickard
"Once again in my humble opinion, I think if two people (regardless of their sex) are in love with each other then sex (in whatever form) is a “natural” expression of that love. (This is not to suggest that all sex is an expression of love, people can have sex in a purely lustful context, for example.) Therefore, constructing an argument from this perspective, one could quite reasonably propose that gay sex is as natural as heterosexual sex."
I don't agree with that. What about those with paedophilic tendencies who have a Lolita-type love for an underage girl? Now that would be an example of something unnatural that a paedophilic person could try and justify out of 'love'.
Would you accept that as valid though? I know I wouldn't.
Man and woman is what is natural. Sperm meets egg. That is not up for debate.
"Regarding the research I mentioned. Lots of info on the net so have a look before you condem. You will need to open yout mind a bit though."
You supplied a claim so it is up to you to back it up with proof. My mind is quite open. That's why I'd like the link.
UI:
As you know my own sexuality (and psosibly that of other posters) is not exactly straightforward (!) while a slight majority might favour of gay marriage it is the intensity and indeed the hatred of people who are not entirely *straight* that should be more worrying people who love each other bringing up a child in a loving relationship.
I have recently been the subject of some hate posts and have reposted this below - together with a reaction from someone you know - which also goes to show that a decision you made some time ago about another site was not the wrong one?
....................
City Troll said... fuck you cunt. the only only life in your wombe would run down your legs or beg to scraped clean in some clinic
February 21, 2006 10:51 PM
Troll,Happy Anniversary Troll. I think your site presentation improves all the time. Proud to be associated with you!
David Vance Homepage 02.22.06 - 2:07 pm
Jo,
Why are you still visiting the site? In effect you are supporting them by giving them your attention.
Just boycott the place like I have.
UI
I did not visit ATW, I copied Troll remarks to his own site where the above was posted...
It sounded like he was replying to you. Did you visit Troll's site? I'd steer clear of that guy. If that guy leaned any further to the right he'd have to don lederhosen.
Ui, To say that homosexuality is not natural and to use that argument as a basis for denying gay adoption is much like someone else saying that a straight couple that can not have children via sexual intercourse should not be allowed to IVF or to adopt either. The same thing could be said...they can't do it naturally so it isn't meant to be.
It's bigoted both ways.
Emma,
Sorry, but you're talking rubbish.
And your analogy is deeply flawed.
Aye, so are you and so is yours.
Emma,
What analogy of mine was flawed?
UI said: "I don't agree with that. What about those with paedophilic tendencies who have a Lolita-type love for an underage girl? Now that would be an example of something unnatural that a paedophilic person could try and justify out of 'love'."
UI, to be quite honest, I grow more disappointed in you with each remark. First, if you can't distinguish between abuse and love then you've got serious problems. Also, you're now grasping onto such tenuous and extreme arguments to prop up your view, a view that that as far as I can tell has been rejected by the majority of commentators to this post, that you’re beginning to sound like a Unionist politician.
UI said: “Man and woman is what is natural. Sperm meets egg. That is not up for debate.”
Natural is generally accepted as something that is not created artificially by humans. As I mentioned before, gay love is a natural phenomenon, there is no man-made interference causing it to happen. Besides, explain to us all why something natural has to be automatically better than some thing artificial? In truth, you or anyone else can’t because it’s just not a proposition that is universally true and is simply one of the basic argumentative tenets used by many religions and bigots the World over to justify their own intolerance and uncompromising rigidity.
What bothers me most is not your view as everyone is entitled to their opinion but your intransigence on this specific topic. It’s feels as if you don’t even have the courage to bring your self to admit that the alternative views presented to you by myself and others in this post could possibly have any merit if only from a purely argumentative or logical perspective. I’m starting to believe that you will stubbornly cling to your position on this matter regardless of any argument or research presented to you, crying “no, no, no” to the bitter end. I fear that you may have turned into Ian Paisley.
Rickard
"UI, to be quite honest, I grow more disappointed in you with each remark. First, if you can't distinguish between abuse and love then you've got serious problems. Also, you're now grasping onto such tenuous and extreme arguments to prop up your view, a view that that as far as I can tell has been rejected by the majority of commentators to this post, that you’re beginning to sound like a Unionist politician."
What are you talking about? You failed to even address the point. I'm pointing out that 'love' is complex in this debate.
"Besides, explain to us all why something natural has to be automatically better than some thing artificial?"
Things aren't that black and white. I never claimed that something natural was automatically better than something artificial.
"It’s feels as if you don’t even have the courage to bring your self to admit that the alternative views presented to you by myself and others in this post could possibly have any merit if only from a purely argumentative or logical perspective. I’m starting to believe that you will stubbornly cling to your position on this matter regardless of any argument or research presented to you, crying “no, no, no” to the bitter end. I fear that you may have turned into Ian Paisley."
Paisley doesn't listen to those who disagree with him, I have been willing to argue my point of view throughout the thread.
The fact is, I haven't seen nybody really state anything to make me reconsider my position. Too may people are too fond of using the 'B' word.
As for stubbornness, you completely ignored my first point!
Commenting by HaloScan
