So its ok to discriminate against teachers on religious grounds as long as the gays ar looked after? This Im alright Jack mentality is very sad.

So it’s ok to discriminate against the gays on religious grounds as long as teachers are looked after? This “I’m alright Jack” mentality is very sad.

See how poor your argument is?

That’s what the minister implied and you welcomed it?

Nicely done, Leigh.

@Kevin: Can you tell me how does strengthening the rights and entitlements of LGBT teachers discriminates against teachers on “religious grounds”? Do you really believe that qualified teachers, that more than often obtained their education qualification with taxpayers’ money, should be forced to 1. hide their sexuality or 2. choose to relocate to a different school – in order to achieve full convergence of personal and professional realisation? How do you justify this in a public education system provided by a secular State?

Pablo – The Minister says he wishes to strengthen the rights and entitlements of LGBT teachers re being discriminated. This sounds like a good move as everyone is against discrimination? Yet the Ministers statement rings rather hollow in the absence of not acknowledging that it is legally permissable to discriminate against teachers on the basis of their religion or non religion, as the case maybe, and in all fairness could not be described as an acceptable state of affairs. So until all discrimination is removed the Ministers statement is not strong nor welcome. It’s akin to saying you cannot discriminate on the basis of gender but you can discriminate on basis of sexual orientation and this is somehow presented as a victory? Ministerial weasel words.

@ Kevin – Can you give us any examples of where teachers have been discriminated against on religious grounds? It’s easy to imagine atheist teachers being discriminated against given the religious control over most schools. Is that what you’re talking about?

Mark – The Employment Equality Act allows religious-run schools to look preferentially at prospective employees on religious grounds, without being found to have discriminated. I can’t make any simpler than that. Does anyone agree that this OK?

I know someone who, while being interviewed for a primary school teaching job, was asked by the priest interviewing her, about her philosophical ethical and religious outlook. She talked around the issue mentioning spirituality etc and the priest spotted the dodge, said “that’s quite a humanist approach really isn’t it.” She didn’t get the job based in her not being a catholic or willing to lie to get the job.

Paul – That is what I am talking about its just plan wrong. The normal question asked is “how do you feel you will be able to contribute and better enhance the ethos of the school?” Even if you prove you were discriminated on religious grounds there is no penalty as it is legal to discriminate in such situations.

Watching Ireland predictably make all the dumb (down) mistakes every other country has made, gives me a case of schadenfreude. Like a train wreck in slow motion.

Typically, Ireland waits until all these social experiments have been proved as abject failures before Ireland … mindlessly adopts them.

Heres the Misandry Bubble for those still capable of thinking independently rather than sheeple following whatever trend is current:

The Misandry Bubble
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

Its a sham to see my country go down the toilet, but utterly predictable.

The state can’t exit the marriage business because the marriage business is so intertwined with the affairs of the state, including, but not limited to, children’s affairs, tax, inheritance, property law, division of assets upon divorce, etc. I do understand the sentiment behind your statement, and personally I would love to agree, but at this stage it is just too embedded in Irish law. We’d have to scrap pretty much our entire legal system to facilitate the exiting of the state from marriage.

Its very possible. Instead of the state defining personal relationships. The couple do.

Ah, but you’re missing an important point about marriage Kevin. The state doesn’t define personal relationships. It provides a legal framework for recognising personal relationships. Although most people tend to only focus on the romantic or emotional level of marriage, there is actually an entirely other side which involves assets, liabilities, inheritance, etc. Without state intervention in marriage what would happen to a couple’s assets upon divorce where the former partners in such a marriage do not agree to asset/liability division? Who would determine the custody of the children if there are any? What about upon the death of a partner – who would determine inheritance issues? With no state involvement these issues become entirely private without any legal definition and so can’t even be brought to court, thereby leaving the couple in legal limbo. The state got involved in marriage as previously this was the domain of the Church, with it determining such problems and deciding upon resolutions.

I missed nothing. Legal partnerships are entered into everyday. All the issues you raise can be agreed upon in a private legal agreement tailored to the individuals concerned. Why does the state need to do this? Privatised it.

Brian – If the state doesn’t define personal relationships as you say. How is it that same sex couples cannot marry?

Actually Kevin, they can marry. As I said the state doesn’t define personal relationships. The current situation is that same sex couples can marry, but from a legal point of view the state doesn’t recognise the legality of such relationships. There is a difference between defining a relationship and recognising one.

You also stated that [a]ll the issues…raise[d] can be agreed upon in a private legal agreement tailored to the individuals concerned. Actually, no, they can’t. It’s the same when it comes to people setting up a business as a business partnership. Yes they have private legal agreements tailored to the individuals concerned, but the state is there in the background providing legislation for those agreements. The clue is in what you stated – private legal agreement. It can only be legal if the state has intervened and provided legislation. Therefore it is already intervening in providing a framework for recognising the relationship.

Marriage is about money, not love between two people nor procreation.

Brian – Your post makes no sense “they can marry. As I said the state doesn’t define personal relationships. The current situation is that same sex couples can marry, but from a legal point of view the state doesn’t recognise the legality of such relationships.” Is this not defining?

I suggest marriage should be privatised. Let people make their own marriage contracts according to their conscience, religion and common sense. Those contracts could be registered with the state, recognised as legal and arbitrated by the courts, but the “terms” would be determined by those involved – not the by the state.

Then why do you post here?

why wouldn’t this country pass an amendement to allow gay marriage?

If you think a “normal” upbringing for a child requires two parents of opposing genders do you advocate seizing the children of lone parents?

Your heart may say no, but the evidence overwhelming says yes.

You should see a doctor about that heart problem.

What is a ‘normal up bringing?’ Single parents exist, divorced parents exist, re-married parents exist where kids end up with 2 mums AND 2 dads. People may sit and judge whether they “like” all of these scenarios, or whether they consider them to be the best way to raise a child, but no one is trying to introduce law to prevent any of these occuring.

Your heart tells you no. Scientific studies and evidence tells me yes. Have a read of both these articles from Stanford University and the University of Virginia. There are many more. Using facts and figures or feelings of the heart to protect people…I know which one I choose.

Look studies can tell you anything you want them to tell you.
I realise that most people reading this thread will more than likely have their mind made up already so I’m not gonna convince anyone but how could a child raised by two men for example have a normal up bringing?
I do realise normal is subjective but just using it loosely for sake of argument.

And of course there are all sorts of scenarios out there with single parents families etc but should it be legal to let two men adopt a child? it just seems wrong in my book and I’m not at all religious.

OK, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. You say two men can’t raise a child in a normal way (we’ll agree to use the word loosely). Do you think one man can raise a child in a normal way?

I don’t want to argue with you and I completely respect your right to your opinion on this issue – I just happen to disagree with you.

I am honestly really interested in hearing why you think two men or two women raising a child together will be such a disaster. There are so many single parents raising their children as a sole parent, ie ONE man or ONE woman. I don’t see the difference.

I think the difference is Helen what you are teaching the child. Do you think a little boy raised by two gay men will be confused about men and women? Will he not want to emulate his role models?

And then there’s the whole issue of social stigma attached to it. Will his peers treat him like anyone else or the weirdo kid with two dad’s?

I believe in the sanctity of the family and also respect people’s lifestyle choices but where kids are concerned it seems (to me) a bridge to far legalizing same sex adoption.

Jonathan speaking as an atheist I just want to inform you Jesus had 2 fathers & according to the people that believe in him he was a great man. The funny thing about that is, the people that believe in him are more likely to be against anyone else having 2 dads or mams. Do you see the hypocracy. Also today will live in a society where you have marriage breakups & children having a father or stepfather or mother. I cant see what the problem is & no doubt that there will gay couples capable of being bad parents just like straight couples.

@ Mjhint Jesus had an earthly father and a heavenly father so not quite the same thing, but as I said previously I’m not religious at all.

Mjhint. Jesus did not have two dads this just suits your argument.

@ Jonathan. I couldn’t agree more with you. While I have no real problems with gay couples cohabiting and getting ‘married’, I do have concerns about them bring allowed to adopt children in this abnormal environment. When they choose to marry they are doing so of their own choice but when allowed to adopt the poor child has no say in the matter. In fact the child is more likely to grow up gay as a result of living with gay parents

@Briain – how come, then, the parents of most gay people are straight? It’s us straighties that keep having the gay babies. Or do you think that “immersion in the culture” could *make* someone gay? Does that mean, then, that YOU could possible jump the fence if you were, say, working all day with a gay colleague?

“In fact the child is more likely to grow up gay as a result of living with gay parents”

Nature or nurture? Science points towards nature rather than nurture.

Also consider that all homosexual people have heterosexual parents.

If the nurture theory is true, how does one account for the gay children that emerge from homophobic families?

@Jonathan I get where you’re coming from. But does the fact that the child will get bullied for having gay parents not say more to you about the need to educate children about diversity, tolerance and acceptance? It’s not OK for a child to be bullied for being overweight, it’s not OK to be bullied for being poor, or foreign, or for having one parent much older than the other, or for wearing silly shoes, it’s not OK for a child to be bullied because they are gay. The list is endless.

I was brought up by my mother and father – that didn’t stop me from being gay. Children may want to emulate their parents – but they don’t need to be gay to do that. They can support the same team as them, follow their career path. Being gay is not a choice – nothing the parents do will be able to change their child’s sexual orientation in either direction. Straight parents have been trying for years and it hasn’t worked!

@Brian I’ve tried to thumb down your comment but for some reason I can’t. I won’t even engage you in debate. You just keep believing your ‘facts’ while the world evolves around you.

Well it’s my understanding that there are a lot of gay people with their own children.. not all gay people are born from heterosexuals.

My opinion on the matter would be that a little straight boy being raised by two gay men would be impeded in his development by the constant homosexual reinforcement that he is brought up with.

it’s just my opinion and I could be wrong but if a public vote was held I’d be against.

What are you basing your assertion that a child would grow up gay on? If two men adopted a girl would they not be attracted to men based on your presumption?

Helen I completely agree that bullying for anyone being different is NOT OK but the ugly truth is that it does happen.. it’s all very well to say we should educate to accept but this will take generations.

When you say “homosexual reenforcement”!! does that mean teaching a child that its ok to be homosexual when they grow up, sounds like a fairly healthy attitude

Do you actually think that all of a sudden with the introduction of marriage equality that gay people will start to apply for adoption? GAY PEOPLE ARE RAISING CHILDREN RIGHT NOW WITH NO LEGAL PROTECTION. This is a reality for many families, and it affects the children in terms of what they are entitled to, ie inheritence rights and legal protections afforded to other families. If anything happens to the biological parent in these cases, the child has no protection to be cared for by it’s other parent = the other person who has raised them and loved them and cared for them and taught them [not how to be gay btw, that's just ridiculous] Why should these children exist in a legal limbo? And please realise that this is an actual reality, it’s fact. there are gay men and women raising children in families right now. And they’re invisible in the eyes of the law. It’s ridiculous, and just because you don’t understand or like it doesnt mean these families don’t exist or deserve protection. Open your eyes man, before you walk into something.

@Jonathan – I also believe that a couple that thinks that Ms. Doubtfire is a good film and enjoys Paulo Coelho should not be allowed to adopt or raise a child. But my personal upbringing(in one word) has taught me that my personal opinion and tastes should not get in the middle of other people’s fundamental rights and access to equal treatment. That’s why I say – “They have an entitlement to adoption, despite Robin Williams and Paulo Coelho”.

@ Briain O’Dochartaigh. You say “the child is more likely to grow up gay as a result of living with gay parents.” Even if that was true (which it most certainly is not), why would it be an issue? Is there something wrong with being gay?

Mohammad please enlighten this poor ignorant atheists & Jonathan if your not religious how do you come to your conclusion about Jesus the same as the moderate muslim.

@mjhint. Joseph was not the father of Jesus, the rest can be explained in the holy trinity and btw I am not Muslim and I don’ t practice Islam, very presumptuous of you.

For a person that doesnt practice islam & I have no doubt you dont you defend it quiet a bit. Also did joseph not take the place of jesus father or marys husband if the bible is to be believed.

And I’m sick of negative comments like yours. Isn’t this action by him called PROGRESS? No?

They are great at saying this needs to be done and that needs to be done and we are acutely aware blah blah blah, when they do try to tackle something of such a serious issue they mess it up, I expect nothing more from them on this issue, unfortunately!

This whole gay marriage thing has progessed recently. At least acknowledge that so that your opinion is more informed.

Sorry,I have to agree with @Disildoforus in a sense here. Shatter’s ACTIONS will receive my credit…but when he’s speaking at an LGBT event,he’s hardly going to say what they don’t want to hear.

I will hold back on criticism of Shatter, as I welcome the statement…but only if it’s followed through with actions that implement the commitment he speaks of.

The skepticism only comes from recent past experience of this gov,telling the specific crowd they are addressing what they want to hear…and then reneging on it.

My opinion is very informed. I am completely in favour of marriage equality. I simply have serious doubt about Fine Gael’s or Labour’s ability to get the job done.

PROGRESS.

FREEDOM is SLAVERY

PEACE is WAR

FORWARD is BACKWARD.

Brought to you from the Obama Cult of Personality.

Yes

Are you saying it’s a choice? Who would choose potential exclusion and discrimination?

Mohammed those people are born like that. It is caused my a mutation of a gene so there is nothing they can do about it. Its not their fault. Many creatures suffer mutations.

Mohammed, by your beliefs, I chose to be gay the same as you chose to be straight, am I right? Tell me, when did you choose to be straight?

was it difficult for you to decide to be straight?