« To Sir, With Love! | Main | A LOAD OF BANKERS! »

April 22, 2005

Comments

Ultonian Scottis American

Big battle in the Texas legislature over a bill banning gay foster parents, which apparently happens now.

I couldn't care less what gays do with each other, but if they want to get married and have/raise children, then they really want to be heterosexuals. There are groups that can help them achieve this.

David Vance

Ultonian Scottis American,

I agree. I have no issues with homosexuals doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes but marriage is between one man and one woman and the raising of children is also for man and woman. Liberals have latched onto the militant homosexual agenda and it's important that conservatives everywhere stand up for family values. This is what the Pope is doing and I respect him for doing it.

Colm

David

Considering you complained recently about the coverage given to papal events in the non-Catholic UK you certainly seem to have joined the bandwagan in flagwaving for the Vatican now.

I agree with you that the Pope should condemn same sex marraige. I wouldn't expect anything less from an RC leader and it is perfectly OK for him to instruct his church and it's adherents to refuse to recognise such an institution. However it is none of the church's business what governments do in the secular sense and long may it remain that way. The rules of faith should not be the law of the land imposed on all.

For someone who so vigorously opposes Islamic fundamentalism and the theocracy of Iran - a view which I share - you seem to have less respect for the separation of church and state in Christian nations.

If the Spanish govt. wish to create civil marraige for same sex partners why shouldn't they. Civil law is entirely separate from the religous sacrament of marraige, and so long as any govt. is not forcing the church to accept and conduct such marraiges ( and that is not happening in this case or anywhere else to my knowledge) then I fail to see how the church can regard a non-religous contract as 'iniquitous'.

The sacrament of marraige should be for man & woman. The civil recognition of relationships should be open to any couple.

Peter

DV, I agree with you 100% on this, even though I'm a liberal.

Also, I think you assume that all liberals are behind the "gay rights" agenda. Not so! Let them get "married" if they want, but no adoption or artificial procreation of children.

Colm

Peter

YThen you are not a liberal. If you were you would support the "Gay Rights" agenda. There is no logical reason , other than for reasons of religous belief why in the civil arena homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Young  Irelander

I would take a similar line to Peter. It's one thing for gay people to get married and personally I've no problem with this, but a child should deserves the opportunity to have both a father and a mother if possible.

Ultonian Scottis American

"It doesn't make any difference what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."
(Mrs Patrick Campbell, actress, to George Bernard Shaw)

Persecute homosexual behaviour? Counter-productive.

Allow homosexuals legal relationship rights (that surely cannot exclude adoption and fosterage): Social suicide.

"Once the camel's nose is in the tent the rest is sure
to follow."

To allow homosexual legal relationship rights, how do you justify bans against polygamous legal relationship rights? Or inter-species legal relationship rights? Or children's legal relationship rights? Or child-adult legal relationship rights?

As for gays in the military, if women soldiers demand the right to be free of men sharing barracks and showers with them, what is different for straight soldiers to have the right not to share barracks and showers with same-gender soldiers who are sexually aroused by naked same-gender encounters?

Colm

"To allow homosexual legal relationship rights, how do you justify bans against polygamous legal relationship rights? Or inter-species legal relationship rights? Or children's legal relationship rights? Or child-adult legal relationship rights?"

Put the word heterosexual in place of homosexual above and exactly the same far-fetched illogical and nonsensical argument could be made.

Colm

Oh and one more thing - neither Israel or the UK has a ban on gays in the military , in fact Israel never has and both Armed forces remain aming the worlds best, which reuftes the myth that allowing Gays in will destroy morale.

Ultonian Scottis American

Colm:

I believe in evolution, although many people don't. Homosexuality cannot be in the best interests of species survival. Whilst some animals exhibit displays of we might anthropomorphize into "homosexuality", I doubt that they refuse to mate with the other gender. The observed same-sex behaviour amoungst animals is almost invariably dominance ritual, much like prison rape.

As primitive H. Sapiens developed, so did the notion of marriage. Do current remote primitives e.g. aboriginal Amazonians have marriage rituals? Do these include homosexual marriages? (I don't know the answer to these two questions, but perhaps someone here does.) Societies in the past have limited even heterosexual marriages if the participants were too old, as in ancient Athens. This is possibly in recognition of the role of child-bearing inherent in the notion of marriage, however imperfectly applied.

And let's face it, so-called civil unions ARE marriage.

You can enlist in (or get drafted into) the Pink Brigade and get ogled in the shower by Corporal Klinger if you'd like (maybe he'll soap you down, and please, do drop the soap) but I'll pass.

Colm

methinks you are engaging in a little bit of homoerotic fantasising here. Says more about you than it does me.

Oh and in case you were wondering I am not gay but I have a brother and a close friend from my schooldays who are . I respect and care for them very much and hate the arrogant belief held by many that they are in inferior because they happen not to be heterosexual. They are absolutely equal to you I or anyone else.

One more point. Of course in the strictly biological sense homosexuality will not maintain the species, but I don't think there is much danger of the whole world turning Gay , and with a current population of over 6 Billion , increasing at the rate of over 50 million each year extinction of the human race is not really a problem this planet needs to worry about is it ?

David Vance

Colm,

I believe we are all born equal and that one's sexual preference has got nothing to do with our value as people. I just happen to believe that marriage should be restricted between man and woman, and that the militant homosexual lobby should be opposed at every junction because they have a destructive agenda which as Ultonian points out, is aimed at the sacred institution of marriage. For what it's worth, I also oppose civic partnerships as this is a back-door version of marriage and so must also be opposed.

Colm

I accept that the institution of marraige should be between opposite sex partners only . It makes logical sense for a man and woman to become husband and wife and create the foundation of a family unit - which cannot be replicated by same sex couples. Legal recognition of same sex relationships is not marraige nor a back door route to it . It is simply an official mechanism by which gay partners can have a degree of financial and social security and recognition in terms of housing , pensions, next of kin, medical care etc.

Quite rightly the state regards a person's wife or husband as the primary relationship in their life and if necessary the carer and protector of that individual and makes legal provisions accordingly to support their life partnership choice. Without granting the same status as marraige it is perfectly possible and indeed I think it is imperative that civil society recognises homosexuals wish to have their partners recognised too.

Homosexuals are a minority in society and always will be. They pose no threat,and what you term the 'militant homosexual lobby' do not have a destructive agenda , they just want the rest of the population to treat them in practise with the equality that you yourself in your comment above said we are all born with.

Ultonian Scottis American

Just as it is a woman soldier's right not to be required to share intimate quarters with heterosexual male soldiers, it should also be a right for male soldiers not to be required to share intimate quarters with homosexual male soldiers.

People who are too short, too tall, have holes in their heart, or low IQ's are all not compatible for military duty. This doesn't make them inferior beings.

Colm

Ultonian

You paint a very weak and ludicrous image of male heterosexual soldiers, running scared that they will be raped in their beds by gays who because they are not normal human beings obviously can't control themselves. It is such an idiotic stereotype that the only response worthy is to laugh at your argument. In fact the very reverse is probably more the case. Gays in the military are much more likely to do everything possible to avoid drawing attention to their sexuality rather than prowling the dorms with permanent erections lusting after their straight colleagues.

Yes there are obvious medical and physical reasons why some people cannot serve in the armed forces. What specific reasons prevent a homosexual from being able to do so?

Ultonian Scottis American

Colm:

"Gays in the military are much more likely to do everything possible to avoid drawing attention to their sexuality rather than prowling the dorms with permanent erections lusting after their straight colleagues."

Precisely the reason for the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the US military. Allow homosexuals complete freedom to be in the barracks, and your scenario is the likely event.

If you were allowed to live in the women's barracks, wouldn't you be prowling the dorms with a permanent erection lusting after your female (straight or otherwise) colleagues?

mairin

I have a few friends who are gay couples that have fostered and adopted children. They've adopted "hard to adopt" children (older children and HIV-positive babies) and but for them, these children would remain in the horrendous foster-care system bouncing from one home or housing facility to another. God bless them and thank God for them.

Colm

mairin

I get the feeling that 'Ultonian' would prefer they remain in state care.

Michael

This would be hilarous if it wasn't so serious.

First, and easist, gays in the military. The whole 'damage for moral' argument is and has proven to be a load of bull. If you are in a fire fight do you think that you would want a gay person beside you shooting a weapon at the enemy? Being gay doesnt stop you for fighting for what you believe. Recently the US gave a purple heart to an openly gay soldier. If the problem is with the straight men he fights beside then thats their problem not his (or in the case of femailes obviously hers). The same argument was made when black soldiers were introduced into the US Army and that also has proven a load of shite.

Maybe its the fear that gay men can't control their sexual urges - lol. Yeah again that is a fear brought about by ignorance. Homosexual people have the same sexual urges (albeit with a different orientation) as straight people and they have the same control, or in the some cases lack of control, as straight people.

As for the marraige thing I have commented extensively on ATW on this. Why wouldn't two people, who love each other, not want to express their love to each other and their friends through the most expressive manner possible - marraige. If it is a perspective that homosexuality is abhorrent to nature then I would advise you read more books and watch more documentaries as homosexuality activity (as well as masturbation and other forms of sexual expression) are rife throughout nature.

If it is a religious issue then I can understand a little more but not enough to convince me as it seems that moral crusaders seem more involved in my morals than their own and thats getting tedious. In a secular order (which democracy is) were people have the freedom to believe and follow a religion (or not) a religious opinion is just that - an opinion (this is the position taken by the US and UK govs when allowing satanists to actively practise their religions while being a part of the military).

There is no legal reason why gay marraige shouldn't happen except for the purile "God does like it". In the same Bible book that it says "man should not lie with man" (Leviticus I believe) it also says any child who curses at their parents should be stoned to death - not many people follow that one.

As with nearly all things this is rampant ignorance, or intransigent intolerance, translated into unfounded fear. Get over it you wimps.

mairin

Colm, one lesbian couple are particularly extraordinary parents. One partner is a stay-at-home mom, while the other is high-powered corporate lawyer. Their daughter has to be one of the most well-adjusted, bright, loving children I've ever had the pleasure to meet. One of my co-workers is a single Dad who adopted his ex-partner's sons. The older boy, a teen, is always in and out of trouble...nothing real serious (yet??)...but I shudder to think where he'd be now if it were not for my friend. Hopefully, the stability and care he is getting now can make up for the craziness he faced in his early years (mostly due to mother's instability). He's a good kid, just easily led astray...he's very good-looking and older girls are the ones doing the leading at the moment. The sexuality of his father and now adopted father have been good influences.

Colm

mairin

The trouble is that people like 'Ultonian' refuse to see past their own inate hostility to gays and frankly don't care how many postive attributes an individual has. If they are homosexual that is a 'negative' and it outweighs any number of positive qualities that individual has. It is what happens when you label someone by one element of their construct and care nothing for the thousands of different traits, characteristics, achievements and experiences that makes each person unique.

mairin

Good points Michael and Colm. As was said elsewhere (I think by Michael)...too many people worrying about others' so-called morals, rather than their own.
As for the 'survival of the species' argument above, there was a great/fun thread on here a while back on gay animals ;o). I particularly remember the gay penguins who mated for life...and of course, there's that gay gorilla!

Michael

Here is a good article (that draws no conclusions though) from National Geographic on homosexuality in animals

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

mairin

Very interesting article Michael. Maybe the bonobos have the answer to NI 'troubles...'bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.' ;o)

Michael

The mere thought of Big Ian giving it to Gerry sends me into uncontrolable shudders


(I think I need to go of and pray now as I feel dirty.....)

The comments to this entry are closed.