Same sex couples and their human rights

[Purple]

I do think that it has been strongly implied that MrMan is homophobic and just won't admit it. That is unfair and adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Sunny]

I do think that it has been strongly implied that MrMan is homophobic and just won't admit it. That is unfair and adds nothing to the discussion.

The connection isn't about what they 'get up to' it is one mindset that nature has us equipped to procreate in a definitive manner so maybe that is how we are meant to live. It is but one opinion just as valid as your own.

I said that comment was homophobic and I stick by it. I don't know if he is homophobic or not. Maybe he just mis-spoke but the implication that homosexual couples are in some way acting in an un-natural way by engaging in same sex partnerships or that they shouldn't have the same rights as hetrosexual couples because they don't live the type of life he thinks we are 'meant to live' is offensive.

Nobody has still given one decent argument as to why same sex couples should have to forfeit their maternal and paternal instincts because they can't 'procreate naturally' despite the fact that thousands of hetrosexual couples get help to conceive every single day.

We can dress this up as much as we like and it was the same on the Frontline last night but the conclusion is the same. Catholic Church teachings on homosexuality still intrude on this debate every single time it is discussed.

 

[Latrade]

I do think that it has been strongly implied that MrMan is homophobic and just won't admit it. That is unfair and adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm one who did so and you're right it doesn't add to the debate. But as Sunny said the "not natural" argument only applies to same sex couples, I and others couldn't follow the logic behind that restriction. In addition, the quote provided by Sunny does read as having an issue with the whole issue of homosexuality not just them being parents.

 

[Mpsox]

Nobody has still given one decent argument as to why same sex couples should have to forfeit their maternal and paternal instincts because they can't 'procreate naturally' despite the fact that thousands of hetrosexual couples get help to conceive every single day.

.

I've no doubt that plenty of gay couples are well capable of being good parents and most certainly can't do worse then some of the parents raising ferral kids in Ireland at the minute.
However I do have a concern in the longer term as to what happens when they grow up and ask "what happened my Mammy/Daddy" only to be told that their biological father/mother was a surrogate or donor, perhaps money had been involved etc etc. Same applies for straight couples in that situation BTW.
Also should we consider the rights of the donor. What happens for example, if the donor suddenly wants access and is denied such rights.

I'm far from convinced society has thought this through fully.

It also depresses me to think of the thousands of men denied their human rights of access to their own children after a relationship breaks down. That should be given a higher priority.

 

[Complainer]

they grow up and ask "what happened my Mammy/Daddy" only to be told that their biological father/mother was a surrogate or donor, perhaps money had been involved etc etc. Same applies for straight couples in that situation BTW.

I'm not so sure that this is a major problem . The same problem exists for any adopted child.

Also should we consider the rights of the donor. What happens for example, if the donor suddenly wants access and is denied such rights.

This is a huge issue, and there has been at least one big case on this already;
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gay-sperm-donor-granted-access-to-child-107627.html
This shows the dangers of informal approaches which have not been fully thought through.

 

[MrMan]

I said that comment was homophobic and I stick by it. I don't know if he is homophobic or not. Maybe he just mis-spoke but the implication that homosexual couples are in some way acting in an un-natural way by engaging in same sex partnerships or that they shouldn't have the same rights as hetrosexual couples because they don't live the type of life he thinks we are 'meant to live' is offensive.

Nobody has still given one decent argument as to why same sex couples should have to forfeit their maternal and paternal instincts because they can't 'procreate naturally' despite the fact that thousands of hetrosexual couples get help to conceive every single day.

We can dress this up as much as we like and it was the same on the Frontline last night but the conclusion is the same. Catholic Church teachings on homosexuality still intrude on this debate every single time it is discussed.

Luckily you have highlighted what i have said and now maybe you can read it again. Nature has equipped us to pro-create naturally without aid by one means only, I think we have all agreed on this. To then make the leap from saying that my sentence equates to my believing that homosexual acts are un-natural astounds me.
If I wear a condom i know that it will prevent pregnancy if i have sex with a woman (most of the time) and I don't believe that to be un-natural. Gay men and woman know that they won't conceive by having sex with the same sex as their own, there is no difference in my eyes. You go into things as adults aware of the consequences or lack therof of your actions.
Your assumptions that I 'mis-spoke, was homophobic in my comments and have based my input to this debate on Catholic teachings are all way off the mark.

 

[Sunny]

Luckily you have highlighted what i have said and now maybe you can read it again. Nature has equipped us to pro-create naturally without aid by one means only, I think we have all agreed on this. To then make the leap from saying that my sentence equates to my believing that homosexual acts are un-natural astounds me.
If I wear a condom i know that it will prevent pregnancy if i have sex with a woman (most of the time) and I don't believe that to be un-natural. Gay men and woman know that they won't conceive by having sex with the same sex as their own, there is no difference in my eyes. You go into things as adults aware of the consequences or lack therof of your actions.
Your assumptions that I 'mis-spoke, was homophobic in my comments and have based my input to this debate on Catholic teachings are all way off the mark.

Seriously???

This is the following sentence to the one I quoted above

Nobody is suggesting that we have a perfect society, but if we all lived as we should and as nature intended then things would be better.


Again, you use the phrase 'live as we should' and as 'nature intended'. What the hell does that mean?

Maybe I have taken you up wrong and if so I apologise but I think alot of people would agree with my readings into those two sentences.

 

[Purple]

It also depresses me to think of the thousands of men denied their human rights of access to their own children after a relationship breaks down. That should be given a higher priority.

I agree with you there. Men are second class in Irish society now.

 

[csirl]

I dont understand what all the fuss is about. There is no law against gay people raising children, and as has been pointed out, there are gay people with children. My understanding is that these children and their parents have exactly the same rights as any other children and their parents? There are many couples out there who have children with people other than their current partners.

The undercurrent to the current debate seems to be that gay couples are seeking a change in law whereby if one of them has a child, then the other one automatically gets guardianship/parental rights. This would be a more favourable position than currently exists with other parents in second relationships (or maybe had no relationship with other parent of child). Essentially, this would mean that if one parent of a child entered into a gay relationship (or is already in one), then the other parent would lose their guardianship. This is unfair. Both parents should always have equal rights to guardianship and parental responsibilities.

 

[Sunny]

I dont understand what all the fuss is about. There is no law against gay people raising children, and as has been pointed out, there are gay people with children. My understanding is that these children and their parents have exactly the same rights as any other children and their parents? There are many couples out there who have children with people other than their current partners.

The undercurrent to the current debate seems to be that gay couples are seeking a change in law whereby if one of them has a child, then the other one automatically gets guardianship/parental rights. This would be a more favourable position than currently exists with other parents in second relationships (or maybe had no relationship with other parent of child). Essentially, this would mean that if one parent of a child entered into a gay relationship (or is already in one), then the other parent would lose their guardianship. This is unfair. Both parents should always have equal rights to guardianship and parental responsibilities.

The original post in this thread stated that only couples who can 'procreate naturally' should be allowed to have children.

Doesn't really have much to do with civil partnership legislation. It's to do with do people think same sex couples (or couples with fertility problems as it happens) should be entitled to try and have children if they so wish.

 

[Complainer]

Nature has equipped us to pro-create naturally without aid by one means only,

Nature has also given us homosexuality, and IVF, and adoption, and surrogacy and all those other complications that don't fit nicely in the Mr & Mrs Jones model.

 

[csirl]

The original post in this thread stated that only couples who can 'procreate naturally' should be allowed to have children.

In my mind, it all comes down to genetics. With standard IVF/fertility treatment, the genetic parents are the couple undergoing the treatment - there is no 3rd party involvement.

With sperm/egg donations, then only one of the couple is the parent - there is another parent out there i.e. whoever made the donation. One of the couple is not the biological parent.

The facts are that, even with scientific/medical intervention, it is not possible for a gay couple to have children. The best they can hope for is one being the biological parent with a third party being the other parent. There is absolutely no point in us bringing in laws for things which are currently impossible - its a waste of Oireactas time.

Again, they are in no different a position under Law than any other couple who have had a child with donated sperm/eggs. You still have a third party out there who is the biological parent and who has rights if they wish to exercise them and who may be forced to contribute by the State i.e. child maintenance.

As for the "right" to have or "entitlement" to have children - there is no law against becoming a parent. Anyone, no matter how good or bad a parent they will become, can do it provided another party of op sex agrees to contribute, even if this contribution is only donated sperm/egg. Straight and gay people are in no different a position in this regard.

 

[Sunny]

The facts are that, even with scientific/medical intervention, it is not possible for a gay couple to have children. The best they can hope for is one being the biological parent with a third party being the other parent. There is absolutely no point in us bringing in laws for things which are currently impossible - its a waste of Oireactas time.
regard.

The problem is as far as I know (open to correction), a gay couple can't even adopt as only married couples or single applicants are allowed to adopt.
Also, if one half of a lesbian couple uses treatments such as sperm donor and gets pregnant, her partner has no recognised rights.

 

[MrMan]

Seriously???

This is the following sentence to the one I quoted above

Nobody is suggesting that we have a perfect society, but if we all lived as we should and as nature intended then things would be better.


Again, you use the phrase 'live as we should' and as 'nature intended'. What the hell does that mean?

Maybe I have taken you up wrong and if so I apologise but I think alot of people would agree with my readings into those two sentences.

Ok lets look at it this way, most people would say that to be gay is not a choice and that you are born that way, yes/no? If yes you agree then they are naturally gay and will naturally look for love and pleasure with someone of their own sex. Ditto for hetero people except their path can lead to pro-creation. Both very natural acts by very natural people.

By saying that if we lived as nature intended was naive as I can't say for sure what that is. i can only point at one aspect (man+woman =child) and ask is there any merit in the fact that without intervention nature has us equipped in a definitive way to create life. It's just a theory that is being put out there hence the multitude of 'maybes' in my posts. I know I'm not dealing in absolute fact, but it is obvious that these debates are coloured by what we have written in other threads and that is unfortunate. Anyways it's not so much the insinuation that I am a homophobe for holding a viewpoint that annoys me, it's more that another debate gets thrown off course with statements such as 'homphobe, racist' etc when i believe that until an argument is drawn to a close no conclusion should be made. I can be just as bad I'm sure but it annoys me nonetheless.

 

[Latrade]

With sperm/egg donations, then only one of the couple is the parent - there is another parent out there i.e. whoever made the donation. One of the couple is not the biological parent.

The facts are that, even with scientific/medical intervention, it is not possible for a gay couple to have children. The best they can hope for is one being the biological parent with a third party being the other parent. There is absolutely no point in us bringing in laws for things which are currently impossible - its a waste of Oireactas time.

Again the point is that similar situations apply in straight couples, whether with biological partner absent for whatever reason. Why can't the new parent be recognised as such and have the rights to act as a parent if it's what everyone wants? Are they to be given those rights on the basis of they could be a parent in an ideal world because they're biologically able to in theory?

The answer is you can't and the government can't because it would be discrimination. So in order to achieve rights it has to be the same rights for everyone across all sexes, religions, sexualities, etc. This isn't just legislation to allow "gay adoption" IIRC it's to instil rights for the new societal views of "family".

 

[Sunny]

Ok lets look at it this way, most people would say that to be gay is not a choice and that you are born that way, yes/no? If yes you agree then they are naturally gay and will naturally look for love and pleasure with someone of their own sex. Ditto for hetero people except their path can lead to pro-creation. Both very natural acts by very natural people.

By saying that if we lived as nature intended was naive as I can't say for sure what that is. i can only point at one aspect (man+woman =child) and ask is there any merit in the fact that without intervention nature has us equipped in a definitive way to create life. It's just a theory that is being put out there hence the multitude of 'maybes' in my posts. I know I'm not dealing in absolute fact, but it is obvious that these debates are coloured by what we have written in other threads and that is unfortunate. Anyways it's not so much the insinuation that I am a homophobe for holding a viewpoint that annoys me, it's more that another debate gets thrown off course with statements such as 'homphobe, racist' etc when i believe that until an argument is drawn to a close no conclusion should be made. I can be just as bad I'm sure but it annoys me nonetheless.

I never said you were homophobic as a person. I just said those sentences seemed homophobic. I made a comment the other day that I considered innocent but a friend pulled me up by saying he considered it racist. I don't consider myself racist but freely admit that I have probably made comments in the past that were at best inappropriate on various issues and was grateful for the opportunity to explain myself.
I have a family member who is gay so maybe I am over sensitive about these things. She had to leave Ireland to live her life (albeit is now talking about coming home because apparently the 'gay scene' in Ireland is great fun now!)

Anyway as you say, it distracts from the debate

 

[TarfHead]

It also depresses me to think of the thousands of men denied their human rights of access to their own children after a relationship breaks down. That should be given a higher priority.

+1

According to Senator Ronan Mullen, the groups lobbying for the Civil Partnership Bill, 'jumped the queue'.

Me and him on the same side of an argument ?
Shiver

 

[MrMan]

I never said you were homophobic as a person. I just said those sentences seemed homophobic. I made a comment the other day that I considered innocent but a friend pulled me up by saying he considered it racist. I don't consider myself racist but freely admit that I have probably made comments in the past that were at best inappropriate on various issues and was grateful for the opportunity to explain myself.
I have a family member who is gay so maybe I am over sensitive about these things. She had to leave Ireland to live her life (albeit is now talking about coming home because apparently the 'gay scene' in Ireland is great fun now!)

Anyway as you say, it distracts from the debate

Fair enough, in the real world i'm a walking talking contradiction, but when I write things down I generally put more thought into it. I think I'll stick to the world cup thread.

 

[Sunny]

+1

According to Senator Ronan Mullen, the groups lobbying for the Civil Partnership Bill, 'jumped the queue'.

Me and him on the same side of an argument ?
Shiver

I don't understand why there is a queue. This should all have been dealt with at the same time. The Law Refrom Commission published a paper last year. Maybe if the politicians dealt with legislation rather than potholes in their local area, we might get something done.

 

[Latrade]

Ok lets look at it this way, most people would say that to be gay is not a choice and that you are born that way, yes/no? If yes you agree then they are naturally gay and will naturally look for love and pleasure with someone of their own sex. Ditto for hetero people except their path can lead to pro-creation. Both very natural acts by very natural people.

We've established that one can lead to a child and the other can't. The question that this debate is around is whether the inability to naturally conceive means you are prohibited from adopting a child.

I say no it shouldn't. That doesn't extend to everyone being able to own a child as if they were a commodity, it just means that your ability to conceive isn't the judge. Your ability to raise, support and love a child is the only judgement.

So, is ability to naturally conceive an absolute barrier to being a parent (with all the options available today to facilitate this)? If you can't conceive naturally, you are not permitted to be a parent?