Were you around in 1960's America?
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Gannicus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Were you around in 1960's America?
They are driven to express their concern over two people of the same sex raising children.
I've never seen people express concern over children being raised by other types of non-traditional-nuclear family. It is never a subject of debate. "The poor children who are raised by single parents" or "poor kid who only had an elder brother to bring him up" or whatever you can think of. You do see people concerned with the well being of children who grow up in orphanages, or in unstructured families. Not with proper families, whatever their composition in terms of gender roles.
People only express those concerns so vocally when it's a gay couple. What's that other than prejudice?
Last edited:
I'm not trying to be, sorry if it comes across that way. So far the arguments as to why it's not homophobic seem to be (and correct me if I'm wrong):
a) Because it's been seen traditionally as between a man a woman. My answer is so what? People can use the bible to justify all sorts of things, doesn't make them right.
b) Because what if it leads to gay adoptions? Which is a separate debate and is still homophobic in my opinion.
I made my point about two pages ago, honestly, I can't make it any clearer than that. On the subject of homophobia, perhaps it would be wiser for some people to explore the concept of ethnocentrism.
Gay adoption is an entirely different issue, in my opinion. Not one I've even considered as a part of this debate. They're entirely separate, although, I should reiterate, I don't see the problem in either. I'd just prefer not to vilify the people who do, better to try and understand their reasoning even if you consider it illogical.
In a perfect world any child would be brought up in a loving, stable environment and it wouldn't matter whether the gender of his/her parents were both male, both female or one of each. Good female and male role models don't have to be your parents.
Good Point.
Yeah I wasn't saying you were just be clear, I was summarising what I thought were the arguments made by yourself and another poster that did talk about gay adoption and this idea of a 'slippery slope'.
Nobody is really saying that though.
@Ubik @duffer In relation to the single parent thing, I'm guessing a lot of the no campaigners would argue that isn't ideal either. Which obviously isn't to say that single parents are bad parents, just that in an ideal world a child would be better off having two parents.
You're right that that issue wasn't brought up to the same degree but I'm not really arguing that the no point of view was consistent or logical....
Right, but they aren't arguing that straight couples shouldn't be allowed to split for the sake of the children's upbringing. Whereas suddenly now that gay people are entered into the equation it's one of the arguments for not having it.
To answer that you sort of have to look at gender theory and the recent scientific refutation of the idea that biological sex is a primary factor in shaping behaviour. 'Male' and 'female', in terms of gender rather than sex, is an entirely constructed concept. We use the same words to describe both biological sex and gender, but that's a product of our culture rather than a biological fact. Biological determinism (the idea that people with penises are inherently psychologically different to people with vaginas on the basis of their physiology alone) is a fallacy for which the scientific 'evidence' is based on the theories of crack-pot psychologists who were writing over 100 years ago.
Basically the upshot is that the contents of your pants are only relevant because we're told they are and its possible, if difficult, to 'de-programme' yourself from that belief in the same way it's possible for someone raised Christian to stop believing in God. Ultimately, the idea that there are things a child needs in order to be raised well that only a person with penis or only a person with a vagina can supply is bogus and damaging.
edit - there is scientific evidence of some differences between female and male brains, but there is little beyond conjecture that actually proves that it is these minor differences, rather than socialisation, that have an impact on the bulk of gendered behaviour. Also it's worth noting that outside of, or pre-dating, the spread of western culture there are plenty of examples of societies where there are 3 or more genders.
Last edited:
I'm sure a lot of the people who push this point with regard to gay marriage but not in other areas are indeed homophobic. I'm just saying that this doesn't necessarily mean that *everybody* who voted in that direction was homophobic.
It's not that hard to see how people could be misled or confused, especially in the context of a referendum debate where the no campaign were arguing along those exact grounds (and being given equal weight in the media). Add to that the fact that individual aspects of their argument were backed by neutral authorities and you have grounds for some reasonable people having reasonable (if misinformed) concerns.
Tbf to a lot of the very conservative campaigners too, they did make the argument against single parents when the divorce referendum was going on years and years ago. They might be wrong but they're also consistent in that sense.
Last edited:
Being raised in a childrens home is far, far less ideal for the kids than being raised by a single parent or same-sex couple.
Sodom and Gomorrah!
Fair enough. Actually, I can see why surrogacy might be controversial, but the concept of adoption requires a homeless child. Hard to care about the supposed effectiveness of gender roles when the alternative is orphaned child.
Many of them did make that point during the divorce referendum though, which is presumably at least partly why that ended up being so close? That battle is long lost though, so I guess it would hurt their current argument if they dredged it up again.
Agree, I think it's very simplistic to discuss "ideal" families in such black and white way. Again, I'm not saying this is my point of view or even a particularly logical point of view, just that it isn't necessarily homophobic.
fecking Roscommon
Donegal South West vote yes by something like 30 votes?
Seems ridiculous that it was so tight but actually it's a sign of how overwhelming the yes victory was that even Donegal ended up voting yes.
Seems ridiculous that it was so tight but actually it's a sign of how overwhelming the yes victory was that even Donegal ended up voting yes.
I understand what you mean, we just probably disagree on what can/should be classified as homophobia or not. In my opinion it's still an homophobic stance, even if you can somehow "excuse" them on basis of ignorance or being misinformed. I'd even guess (out of the blue) that prejudice is more often based on ignorance than hatred or self-entitlement anyway.
Imagine I'm raised in a racist family, am thaught racist beliefs, in a country where racism is the norm. Anyone from a more developed society would classify me as a racist, and rightly so. It wouldn't probably be my fault, but I'd still be one.
As for your last paragraph, I'd say those people are probably prejudiced against any non-nuclear family. In the case of homosexuality there's a specific name for their prejudice, which is homophobia.
I really don't. Have never seen any evidence of that being positive. I know plenty of people whom where raised by single parents (me included) and I've never seen anything that stands out as missing or absent in the shaping of their personalities or lives. Until someone proves me otherwise, I'd call it a myth.
I agree with your post - but just to weigh in here, your ideal scenario where both sexes are (from a behavioural and gender point of view) completely equal, is a long way off. As you say, it is very difficult to de-programme yourself from expectations and parameters set by society over hundreds or thousands of years.
I am not really sure why I am stating this as I am not at all opposed to same sex marriages, I believe that all partnerships should have equal rights, but I think there is validity in some of the arguments and points about providing role models etc for a child. Having said that, you can have same sex couples who are good parents, and equally you can have straight couples who are terrible parents. It is fair to say that your sexual preference in itself does not have any bearing on your suitability as a parent and a role model.
On the face of having quality education, healthcare, safety, material comfort, love, exposure to diverse people and social experiences, etc, what is having specifically one mother and one father expected to add to a child's well-being and development?
I heard on the radio that the Yes vote won by a big margin on two of the Aran Islands and the other Inishbofin I think went the opposite way largely voting No. I think it was Inishbofin that was Craggy Island as well on Fr. Ted so that might explain that though.
Fecking hear hear, brother Arruda. Load of bollox if you ask me.
Wtf happened in roscommon? 
Odd ones out or what!
Odd ones out or what!
Well done Ireland!
Not being Irish, I'll just have to take pride in being, well... human.
Not being Irish, I'll just have to take pride in being, well... human.
Is "Equality for children first" actually what the no vote went with? What about all the little gay children you twats.
They'd probably just write them off as going through a confused stage at a young age or something as equally patronising.
Well done and congratulations to Ireland and @The Black Pearl
Even if you pretend their 'think of the children' argument holds weight, there's also something of a fundemental issue with the idea that anyones equality can be more important than anyone elses. Bit Animal Farm...
Yeah I completely agree with your first paragraph, although I'd say that wanting to change negative culturally-ingrained attitudes is a huge part of the battle. Most people are either dismissive of attitudes that deviate from what they've always known or they're unaware that there is an alternative to them. In that situation nothing is going to change their minds.
On your second paragraph, I get your point in the sense that in the world as it exists now there is a basic cultural consensus on binary gender and in an imperfect world where people are going to put into a box marked male or female and treated differently on that basis, children will likely seek out role models that correspond to their assigned gender. But again I'd argue that's more a product of socialisation than anything else.
Most parents constantly reinforce the gender binary in basically every decision they make regarding the management of a child's appearance (hair-styles, the type/colour of clothing) or of their environment (toys, media, etc.) and social interactions. It's also reinforced by how parents react to the questions children ask. If an assigned male at birth child asks their parents why their friend has long hair and is wearing a pink dress and they're not, the parents will probably say 'because she's a girl and you're a boy'. Children don't instinctively understand these concepts or make distinctions based on them, they ask questions and the answers they receive from the people they trust form the basis of they interpret the world.
This is all to say that if you don't bring up a child to believe that there's an inherent difference between the sexes beyond their role in reproduction, children wont assign particular relevance to sex when they're choosing role models. Obviously as a child grows older and potentially faces discrimination based on their biological sex they may look out for role models who are going through or have overcome similar struggles, but the difference is that's a conscious decision, not something they're doing out of force of habit.
(Sorry, this turned into a bit of a ramble).
*makes mental note to tag jeff when requiring back up in future threads about gender identity*
Holy moly, what a day. I had been so, so depressed two weeks ago when there were a few awful debates where the No side ran riot with unchecked outright lies. Since that night the Yes people really got their act together, we had astounding heartfelt oration from the likes of Colm O'Gorman and Mary McAleese along with big surprises like Alex White coming off the bench to play a blinder. It also helped massively that when the last week kicked in, it seemed most broadcasters no longer allowed the No speakers to go off the point and actually challenged their assertions - last Monday was particularly amazing when one by one they all fell apart in media interviews and debates. Then there was the absolutely astonishing home to vote phenomenon which was just like this:
I volunteered to give people lifts to polling stations yesterday and honestly it meant more to me than my own vote. Totally overcome with the obvious joy on people's faces at Dublin Castle and the people proposing live on air around the country. It's been something else and it'll be a wild night around the country, apart from Roscommon
I volunteered to give people lifts to polling stations yesterday and honestly it meant more to me than my own vote. Totally overcome with the obvious joy on people's faces at Dublin Castle and the people proposing live on air around the country. It's been something else and it'll be a wild night around the country, apart from Roscommon
Delighted it went through.
Between the Eurovision and this, town will be interesting tonight.
Between the Eurovision and this, town will be interesting tonight.
I should say also too that Judge Kevin Cross and Geoffrey Shannon had a major part to play. Although Kevin Cross could be a bit long-winded with his explanations, the moment the likes of Ronan Mullen started questioning his impartiality began a tinfoil hat phase for them. Mothers And Fathers Matter also went into tinfoil hat overdrive around the same time. Then all of them made a major, major mis-step by questioning the funding of Yes Equality etc (which was 100% transparent) which shone a spotlight on their own totally shady funding.
nice.
Very proud of that result today. I wish I was in the city to savour the atmosphere
Well said, that man!
