LGBTQ rights.

Not read the rest of the thread yet, but sure. Still think it's madness somehow in these modern times that people think otherwise.

 

The only political party backing gays equal rights in the north of ireland is sinn fein.
Who would a gay member of the orange order vote for in the elections I wonder

 

The sdlp not in favour of it ?

 

When someone mentions equal rights for gay people, what exactly do they mean? Aside from marriage, which has pretty much been sorted now, what rights do straight people have that gay people don't?

 

The right to not live in fear and not to be discriminated against

 

I imagine you would be apoplectic if it was two gay immigrants kissing in the queue at the job centre waiting to pick up their undeserved benefits.

:smiley-laughing002:

 

I have more than a few gay friends, and they certainly don't "live in fear" of anything. I assume we're talking about the UK, yeah? Or are we talking about the likes of Uganda?

 

It is a sin according to your own personal belief system. In fact sin exists only according to your own personal belief system.

What evidence can you give to support the idea that a child is disadvantaged because they are raised by homosexual parents?

 

For many now ... it's equal rights for same-* couples in death, too.

In many places, same-* couples aren't able to collect the death benefits from their partner that straight couples can.

That needs to change.

 

Ireland has a whole I think is fairly tolerant but suicides are somethin like 8 times more likely to be from the lgbt community so there is obviously bigots and they need to combated and make sure everybody knows its ok to be them selfs

 

Good, lad.

 

:smiley-laughing002:

Aye but it would be because they were leeching off the system not because they were gay

 

:smiley-laughing002:

 

Good post.

 

bombralottathum

 

The thing is, being a silent advocate of each to their own isn't quite enough for some people.

You either have to vocally support it, or you are somewhat perceived as being against it.

 

* it,

Every hole is a goal, every goal may not be a winner but it's still a goal nonetheless :icon_mrgreen:

 

Bit gay..

 

Remember.

Gay is love, Gay is life.

 

Sorry about the delayed reply, Sween. I've been being put through the ringer by my fellow Catholics on a minor theological point of disagreement. :smiley-laughing002:

This matter arises because of difference in the understanding of what we mean when we [Catholics] speak of "nature" and what is "natural". When Catholic philosophers speak of the natural law, they speak of the realization of the ends something has to fulfill in order to flourish as the kind of thing it is. So for example, a flower by nature needs water for it to grow and flourish, and so when it has water, that is good. But if the flower has too little water or too much water, it does not assist in the realisation of its natural ends (to flourish and grow), which is bad. But this example doesn't apply to moral goodness and badness because a flower doesn't have an intellect and will which is necessary for moral judgement. It is an irrational living thing, compared to we rational creatures that do have an intellect and will. The will exists with the natural end to pursue that which is good, it exists to execute those movements necessary to pursue what is good, and the intellect allows us to deduce what the good is. It allows us to inform our wills and our actions. So the objection to the unnaturalness of homosexual acts is founded upon the natural law's principles of moral goodness and badness.

So lets look at *. What is the purpose of the *? The * exists to expel urine, facilitate the engagement in sexual activity and make men wonder why * hates them so much. What is the natural end of sexual intercourse? Procreation. The testes produce sperm and * which is * by the * during the sexual act. The natural ends of sperm, in accordance with what they are, is to join with an ovum and create life. So * out of the * is contrary to the purposes of *, which is to direct sperm to the ovum. So when a male * elsewhere (such as during oral intercourse or * intercourse) then it frustrates the ends for which the sexual act exists. And because we are rational animals that have an intellect, we know this, unlike the lower animals. And because we have a will which exercises acts under the light of reason, we can say that an act takes on a moral quality of either good or bad.

I already messaged you via PM the other day because I couldn't delay letting you know my thoughts on this specific paragraph. But I just want to reiterate again that this was an excellent point you made. I did seriously sit and stare at my computer for about five minutes thinking "oh *...". :smiley-laughing002:

Now there are innumerable studies that demonstrate that children with a married mother and father fair better than others. That children of divorced parents, etc., meet with numerous difficulties during their development. There are countless studies from sociologists and psychologists detailing the unique and essential contributions that fathers and mothers have on their children. This is established scientific fact. I really don't understand how anyone can object to this. Erik Erikson, one of the greatest minds on child psychological development, has stated that the influence of fathers and mothers qualitatively different from one another, and both extraordinarily benefit the child's development because of this. The research centre Child Trends, which is not biased in anyway and does not have an agenda, and relies solely on collecting unbiased data, etc., states that an "extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.... Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development." Another institution, CLASP, says that over the past 20 years, "a body of research has developed on how changes in patterns of family structure affect children. Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do better when raised by two married, biological parents who have low-conflict relationships." Neither of these two groups are religious in nature, neither of these two groups follow partisan politics. And yes I will again refer to the Regnerus study which some have dismissed even though there are details in his study one could use to support same-* marriage. It is scientifically sound.

The opposite has to be said of so-called studies detailing same-* parenting. The body of literature on same-* parenting is practically non-existent. It is so small. The very few studies that do exist are scientifically weak. They are not longitudinal studies. They used controlled and small sample studies which are not by any means representative of the general population (thus my reference earlier to one study's finds being based upon a population of same-* families composed of middle class, white lesbians, quite clearly not representative by any means). Furthermore, the most serious flaw, is that these studies are also based on self-reporting by the parents. Sween, my friend, surely you must acknowledge that parental self-reporting is by no means scientifically sound! Not to mention the serious questions arising around exactly what they studies measured. In fact, did you know that the University of California's same-* parenting study determined that two mothers were the superior option for children? Good Lord, their own studies say even gay men are inferior parents!

Now on the matter of low-income families, I would say that it would be irresponsible for parents to have more children than they can reasonably take care of. But these families do not intrinsically deny their children the fundamental right to both a mother and a father's influence. Same-* parenting remains an artificial construct imposed upon children as some warped social experiment. Low incomes, the family abode, one's post code, are all variables that can change. These are outside social factors that are prone to change. A man can gain better employment, a family can move out of their house to a better house. The government can, and I would argue should, step in and provide support for families. But the same-* parenting dynamic intrinsically denies a child something that is fundamental to healthy psychological and sociological development. Are children in low-income families prone to weak physical development? Yes. So we educate their parents on proper diets, we make it so that healthy foods are more accessible and affordable, and we provide schools with adequate facilities to provide for the physical needs of young persons. You cannot do the same with same-* parents.

I hope I've changed that. :icon_mrgreen: