Polish leader's anti-gay stance threatens EU voting rights

by and... Sat Nov 05, 2005 14:22

What of the rights of gay fathers?

There are many, you know?

by sylvester Sat Nov 05, 2005 14:59

just people who do christian things and talk about them. great. you've just argued yourself out of a lobby. Nice to see you marginalised.

by Roger Eldridge Sat Nov 05, 2005 19:26

There is no such thing as a "gay" father. A father only exists in law because he has acted as a heterosexual in the act of procreation. He was not homosexual then. He may have performed homosexual acts since but that does not make him in law any more a homosexual father than a heterosexual father.

In fact in law only a married man can be a father - because he is married to the mother of a child. This allows him, in fact compels him, to protect his children. If he hadn't married the mother he could not protect his children as he would have no claim in law to be the father of that child as no test exists which can prove 100% that he is the father, only a blood or DNA test which can prove he is NOT the father.

Therefore in law there is no group such as “unmarried fathers” and consequently they have no rights. They have to ask the mother or the state for some rights so can never properly protect his child from either. Isn’t it interesting that there is no such group as “homosexuals’ yet the state has given them (whoever they are?) rights superior than everyone else.

Similarly with our convictions and faith. It can not be proven that I am a Christian or a Muslim but I can declare I am a Christian. Quite rightly neither faith receives any superior rights to anyone else even if they are atheists.

The question remains why does the state encourage people to claim to be homosexual?

Roger Eldridge,
Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland,
Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
www.family-men.com
Tel: 00 353 (0) 71-9667138
email: familymen@eircom.net

by Badman Sat Nov 05, 2005 19:37

Roger, these homosexual acts seem to occupy a large part of your thinking. It's almost as if you found them strangely compelling and just can't stop yourself thinking about them, writing about them and whatever else you might do while pondering their acts.

Leaving your strange obsession aside, I might as well point out that your idea that gay people get extra privileges is ridiculous. There is legislation which is supposed to prevent them being discriminated against, but you can hardly think that is a privilege. I mean, even twisted and bitter old bible bashing bigots have the right not to be discriminated against.

If you doubt me, why not put it to the test? Perform one of these acts and see how many privileges you get. I'm sure that would be the happiest outcome all around.

by Roger Eldridge Sun Nov 06, 2005 05:00

Your comments Mr Badman appear to always fall within the same category.

They amount to personal attacks and slurs and always avoid talking about the issues raised. It is not worth even attempting to respond to your specific taunts as they are so ridiculous.

My concerns are clearly for children as the presumption in law and in practice is that their welfare is to be found in the care of their married parents acting jointly.

Note parents and that is still, even to twisted minds, means their mother and father. And also note that this presumption refers to their married parents because marriage has been shown over millennia to provide children with the care and guidance and role models they need to develop healthily and give them the best outcomes.

it also ensures the stability of their childhood and of society at large. Married parents, even today, with all the pressures and encouragements for women to desert their marriages, still last on average about 12 years which is about 11 and three quarter years longer than most same-sex relationships, so any talk of allowing same-sex couples to adopt on this ground alone is tatntamount to child abuse.

Why don't you think of children and society for a change rather than always promote adult self-gratifications?

by Dave Donnellan Mon Nov 07, 2005 00:17 daviddonnellan at eircom dot net

There is a part of me that wishes what you say could be true i.e. that being a member of a group of people who identify as gay is no more noteworthy than a group who identify as being stamp-collectors or wrestling addicts. Unfortunately there is a fundamental difference between being gay and being members of the other groups, namely, stamp collectors are rarely beaten up and killed because they're stamp collectors like, for instance, in the case of Matthew Shepherd in the US some years back. The reality is, as every gay person knows full well, the simple fact of being gay is sufficient cause in the minds of many to justify cruel and inhuman treatment. The reality is that homophobic prejudice still abounds.

If I may take a sentence to illustrate: You say about gay people "All that exists is people who may commit sexual acts with other people of the same sex." This suggests the existence of gay people can be reduced to the performance of particular "sexual acts". This nonsense is no truer of straight people than it is of gay people. Does a celibate heterosexual cease to be heterosexual because he or she doesn't engage in particular 'sexual acts'? Of course not. Likewise gay people cannot be reduced in such a way.

The second point that emerges is the use of the word 'commit'. It has a very specific legal connotation, which suggests a crime has been performed. So the sentence suggests that when gay people express their sexuality in a way that is entirely natural and normal for them then this is a crime. Any gay couple that has dared to hold hands walking down a public thoroughfare in Dublin will know that this prejudice is of far more than academic concern.

So the reality is gay people are a group for the purposes of discrimination legislation because the simple fact is that they are discriminated against. Roll on the time when it is no longer necessary but that time is far off yet judging by the underlying homophobia of your letter.

by flaming Tue Nov 08, 2005 21:35

"Married parents, even today, with all the pressures and encouragements for women to desert their marriages, still last on average about 12 years which is about 11 and three quarter years longer than most same-sex relationships, so any talk of allowing same-sex couples to adopt on this ground alone is tatntamount to child abuse."

Roger i'm afraid this doesn't logically follow as it compares married relationships, where the partipants are generally very serious about each other to gay relationships of all levels of commitment. Most heterosexual relationships last for quite small amounts of time however marriages usually go on a while because the participants are likely to be committed to one another. I'm not explaining this very well so i hope my point is clear.
I could also point out that in denmark, where civil partnerships for gays have been introduced, there is actually a lower divorce than amongst the heteros. Hmm.
Also if it were found that the marriages of a certain racial group were more likely to break down than that of others would you propose to ban this racial group from adoption regardless of how committed individual couples were? Didn't think so?
Finally isn't it a little offensive to compare having divorced parents to child abuse?