Civil Marriage Protest! 9th August!

Untense

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree. Not every person can adopt on certain grounds, that doesn't mean that they are second class citizens for not having the correct parenting credentials. In fact it would be absurd.

I absolutely agree with this when it comes to a child waiting in an adoption agency who has not met a family.
My issue with the current civil union bill is that it does not provide next of kin rights for already existing families. Right now, there are families that are outside of your family ideal.
I am not referring to children who are 'awaiting adoption', but kids who are already part of and have bonded with, an existing family unit.
Do you regard these already existing same-sex family units as a family in any way ? Would you want support for them?

Earlier in the thread there was mention of the next of kin rights, and you seemed unfamiliar with the point. Do you know that the Civil Union bill does not provide gay couples with next of kin rights?
There is no legal support for any extreme eventualities in the bill, should as a hypothetical example, the biological mother be involved in an accident and in a coma, the partner, having no next of kin rights, does not have any say in their partner's wellbeing. Meanwhile they also have no legal right to remain as guardian over the child.
What do you make of that scenario? Without mentioning the biological father, please.

I don't think that adoption agencies should be encouraging family units without a mother and a father to adopt. That's my personal view on the matter.

Absolutely. It's vital to give a child waiting in an agency the best possible chance of a good life with a loving family. I think anyone would be mad to dispute that. But thats an adoption agency, who I imagine would and should ensure that the child is going to the fittest family, regardless of same-sex adoption being legal or not.
In the real world there are also kids who are already part of existing families, and these families want to ensure the law will support them for all eventualities. It's quite possible for a mixed-gender couple to do this. Currently, same sex couples are unable to get the support they need for their children.

Adoption is not a right, it is something that one can apply for and based on their credentials to parent a child they might be given permission to do so.

Adoption from an agency is most certainly not a right. But to blankedly refuse all same-sex couples as possible candidates doesn't add up , to me.

By gender roles in a family, I am not referring to domestic roles or anything like that. I am referring to the impact on children of having male role model who is active in their lives, and a female role model who is active in their lives, both contributing to their understanding of gender, both contributing in discipline, both contributing in teaching key concepts such as language.

Your emphasis on the importance of gender roles and their effect on a child are extremely tenuous, at best.

Gender roles are exactly that, they are roles. Understanding of gender is entirely subjective, it is not objective as you think. There are societies that recognise more than two genders.
I don't see how having male/female parents has any bearing on discipline. Can you elaborate on that point?
A child learns language regardless of the gender of their parents, and a child learns language from far more sources than their parents. What is it about having male/female parents that you feel affects the development in a child in such an area as language? And how exactly does having a same-sex couple seemingly negatively affect this?

The gender roles you are referring to are just social habits that can be learned and unlearned in a heartbeat.

My views may be offensive, but that is no proper reason for me to retract them. It isn't my sole intention to cause offence by posting on this thread. People will have different views, and some will be offensive to the other, that's a fact of life.

Thanks for being open to discussion.

Untense

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I can't believe I'm about to wade into this pointless debate

I think it's easy to see it that way, it's what usually keeps me from getting involved in these discussions. But then again, we're not the only ones involved in this discussion. Who knows who could be reading this and looking at the issues, maybe for the first time.

It's just a stupid thread on a website, I could think, and turn a blind eye to discussion. But if anyone has a logical and insightful point like the one you mentioned, I'd really encourage people to say it.

The benefit of the internet is that it's easier (though clearly not impossible) to keep emotional reactions at bay. It gives us a chance to look at the real issues that prevent people from wanting us to have equal rights. They have genuine reasons, if we can find those reasons and address them logically we are on the right track.
We are also learning what the barriers are, instead of just getting angry with people for not agreeing with us.

We should be thankful for people like Jakkass who are prepared to engage in discussion without reacting, who are prepared to weigh what people are saying.

Nebit

I feel its best if i answer Iwasfrozen's original question.

True protests don't force the government to call for a referendum on gay marriage, however they do alert the public that people, no matter how many there are, that we (the LGBT comu) are upset with the current situation on the matter.
This allows for others who may not have been aware of the situation to form opinions, after obtaining the proper information on the matter which most of the time are given through media coverage, and that way can better the chance of the LGBT community getting what they want.

This is why protests are held.

I would also just like to say that i may only be 20 but i know that in the future i want a child. The thought of being told due to a sentence or two, that i can't just because i sleep with a man makes me feel sick.
I respect your opinion on the matter,
But i will have a child no matter what even if it means i must have one through a surrogate mother, meaning of course, the mother will never be there for him/her. surely it would be better to be able to adopt and give an already existing child a better life than being cooped up in some old home.

Annasopra

Interesting that Iwasfrozen just left this discussion

Reflector

Gay adoption is wrong but any scumbag can become a parent.

Baby P's mother and her sadistic boyfriend have been named for the first time after a court order keeping their identities secret expired.Tracey Connelly, 28,and Steven Barker, 33, were responsible for the death of 17-month-old Peter Connelly in his blood-spattered room in August 2007.

He had suffered 50 injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken back.

It can also be disclosed that the third defendant in the case, Jason Owen, 37, is Barker's brother and that the pair were also accused of assaulting their own grandmother.

Connelly and Barker, of Tottenham, north London, were sentenced in May for causing or allowing Peter's death.

Father-of-four Owen was also jailed for the same offence, which took place while he was staying at Peter's home.

The semi-detached house was filthy and dead animals - snake food - were left lying around the house, along with pornography.

Connelly's two dogs and Barker's rottweiler Kaiser, which was used to terrify Peter, also lived there.

Doctors, social workers and police failed to save Peter despite him being on the Haringey Council child protection register.

After the trio's Old Bailey trial ended in November last year, there was public outrage at the way Peter was let down by the authorities.

All three defendants were cleared of murder

philologos

Untense: Just to let you know, I am not neglecting your points, I just need some time to gather some source material together to deal with the influence and impact of both mothers and fathers within families. Please be patient with me

philologos

As promised:

Untense wrote: »

I absolutely agree with this when it comes to a child waiting in an adoption agency who has not met a family.
My issue with the current civil union bill is that it does not provide next of kin rights for already existing families. Right now, there are families that are outside of your family ideal.

Okay. I'm aware of this.

Untense wrote: »

I am not referring to children who are 'awaiting adoption', but kids who are already part of and have bonded with, an existing family unit.
Do you regard these already existing same-sex family units as a family in any way ? Would you want support for them?

I would regard them as a family unit, but one that is not ideal for a child to be raised in. I feel that the nuclear family should be incentivised through taxes as the Conservative Party in the UK has advocated.

Untense wrote: »

Earlier in the thread there was mention of the next of kin rights, and you seemed unfamiliar with the point. Do you know that the Civil Union bill does not provide gay couples with next of kin rights?
There is no legal support for any extreme eventualities in the bill, should as a hypothetical example, the biological mother be involved in an accident and in a coma, the partner, having no next of kin rights, does not have any say in their partner's wellbeing. Meanwhile they also have no legal right to remain as guardian over the child.
What do you make of that scenario? Without mentioning the biological father, please.

I wasn't aware of this until MYOB brought it up. A letter I had read in the Irish Times led me to believe otherwise.

You say no reference to the biological father, but I feel that it is important to take into account. Personally I would prefer if both the biological father and the other partner were given joint custody. If the biological father is deceased I would support a male member of the mothers family to take joint custody.

Untense wrote: »

Absolutely. It's vital to give a child waiting in an agency the best possible chance of a good life with a loving family. I think anyone would be mad to dispute that. But thats an adoption agency, who I imagine would and should ensure that the child is going to the fittest family, regardless of same-sex adoption being legal or not.
In the real world there are also kids who are already part of existing families, and these families want to ensure the law will support them for all eventualities. It's quite possible for a mixed-gender couple to do this. Currently, same sex couples are unable to get the support they need for their children.

This doesn't stop me from hoping the Government puts measures in place so that the vast majority of children will be able to live in family units with both a mother and a father.

Untense wrote: »

Adoption from an agency is most certainly not a right. But to blankedly refuse all same-sex couples as possible candidates doesn't add up , to me.

I think it should be restricted to couples with both a mother and a father figure.

Untense wrote: »

Your emphasis on the importance of gender roles and their effect on a child are extremely tenuous, at best.

No it isn't.

This is from "The Role of the Father in Child Development"

From page 70:

Father communication was correlated with childrens' communication skills and in turn was linked to childhood behaviour problems. (Fagan & Inglesias 2000)

Paternal sensitivity was positively related to socialisation whereas restrictiveness was negatively related to childhood communication, socialisation (interpersonal relationships, play and leisure and coping skills) and daily living skills. (Kelley et al 1998)

Paternal warmth was associated with pro-social behaviours while control and discipline from fathers and father figures led to better school behaviours among 3rd and 4th grade children (Coley, 1998)

Close relationships and support from fathers were related to self-esteem and lower depressive symptoms in adolescents (Furstenberg & Harris 1993, Zimmerman et al 1995) whereas the lack of a close relationship with fathers did result in greater depressive symptoms in African-American girls. (Coley & Chase-Lansdale 2002).

A general trend is that African-American children who live in father present homes do better in school and have more supportive home environments than do those from father absent homes.

page 309:

White boys were affected by father absence more than were black boys and white boys from homes where a father was in residence. Only 9% of the white boys from father-present homes were rated by their mothers as "note liked by their peers", whereas over 25% of the white boys from father-absent homes were unpopular with their age mates. Similarly there was some evidence that white girls from father absent homes were at a behavioural disadvantage in comparison with white girls in homes with fathers.

Tenuous? I don't think so. I have had more difficulty finding material on the maternal impact on the child, but I have a few journals yet to read on the subject lined up.

Untense wrote: »

Gender roles are exactly that, they are roles. Understanding of gender is entirely subjective, it is not objective as you think. There are societies that recognise more than two genders.
I don't see how having male/female parents has any bearing on discipline. Can you elaborate on that point?
A child learns language regardless of the gender of their parents, and a child learns language from far more sources than their parents. What is it about having male/female parents that you feel affects the development in a child in such an area as language? And how exactly does having a same-sex couple seemingly negatively affect this?

The point is that families with both a mother and a father are more beneficial to the child. I am not convinced that families with two of the same gender are just as capable of raising a child than families with both a mother and a father are.

I have already stated that there is ground for compromise which has been received with very little response on this thread:

Jakkass wrote:

If there was a possibility whereby the child could have a third parent if you will to serve as the mother or father in that childs life on a regular basis I might be more open to the possibility of LGBT family structures.

Untense wrote: »

The gender roles you are referring to are just social habits that can be learned and unlearned in a heartbeat.

This would be dismissing the evidence that families with a mother and a father are positive on the child. I understand that you don't like that there are studies out there that do put forward the view that having a mother and a father is beneficial to the child. However, I feel we have to deal with the reality here.

Untense wrote: »

Thanks for being open to discussion.

No problem

Dwn Wth Vwls

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it should be restricted to couples with both a mother and a father figure.

You do realise a single parent can adopt a child in this country? I don't see anyone complaining about that. How can two loving parents be worse than one?

Jakkass wrote: »

This is from "The Role of the Father in Child Development"

In my opinion you have misinterpreted this research and taken it out of context to suit your argument. They are talking about divorced parents and absentee fathers. This research is basically about the benefits of two parents instead of a single parent or broken home. This in no way proves that two loving parents of the same gender can't provide exactly the same stable environment. I think same-sex couples make much more effort to ensure their child has plenty of role models of the other gender.

What's really needed is what's called step-parent adoption. The other non-biological parent who is married to the biological parent should be allowed adopt the child. There are already lots and lots of people out there in that situation, and there will be more as time goes on. That is the priority, not adopting random children from agencies. You can't expect there to always be a biological father, there is anonymous sperm donation.

Do you think that those children should remain at risk if something should happen to their biological parent and their non-biological parent is left with no legal rights? Do you think "incentivising" a heterosexual family is more important than the well being of those children? That they should be left in turmoil if something goes wrong, just so that heterosexual families can feel like they're getting a bargain with their tax breaks if they have kids?

Do you really think giving tax breaks to heterosexual families to the exclusion of homosexual families, will somehow make heterosexual families want to get married and have kids more? Why should one group in society suffer to make the other group look more appealing? These are not groups you join by choice, you're born into them, so I fail to see why heterosexual marriages need to be incentivised over homosexual marriages.

Aard

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

This research is basically about the benefits of two parents instead of a single parent or broken home. This in no way proves that two loving parents of the same gender can't provide exactly the same stable environment.

On that note, Jakkass, is there any research out there that compares children of opposite-sex parents with those of same-sex parents? I'm genuinely interested.


(Also, is there any reason as to why you didn't answer my previous questions in this thread?)

philologos

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

You do realise a single parent can adopt a child in this country? I don't see anyone complaining about that. How can two loving parents be worse than one?

Read what I have written before. I would prefer if adoption were restricted to families that can provide both a mother and a father.

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

In my opinion you have misinterpreted this research and taken it out of context to suit your argument. They are talking about divorced parents and absentee fathers. This research is basically about the benefits of two parents instead of a single parent or broken home. This in no way proves that two loving parents of the same gender can't provide exactly the same stable environment. I think same-sex couples make much more effort to ensure their child has plenty of role models of the other gender.

Again, this is dismissing the fact that it discusses father-absent homes, and the benefits that fathers bring to families. A family with two mothers is just as father absent as a family with one mother. I have yet to investigate into the role of the mother on the child, but I assume that there are benefits in having a mother involved in a childs life.

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

What's really needed is what's called step-parent adoption. The other non-biological parent who is married to the biological parent should be allowed adopt the child. There are already lots and lots of people out there in that situation, and there will be more as time goes on. That is the priority, not adopting random children from agencies. You can't expect there to always be a biological father, there is anonymous sperm donation.

As for anonymous sperm donation, again, I wouldn't be in support of this. If one is to commit to being a father one should give their identity. In Sweden they have a policy that the fathers information should be given to the child when they reach 18. I think that is entirely fair, and I think that there should be some way for that contact to be established. I think if one is willing to father anothers child, one should also be prepared to take responsibility for that child.

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

Do you think that those children should remain at risk if something should happen to their biological parent and their non-biological parent is left with no legal rights? Do you think "incentivising" a heterosexual family is more important than the well being of those children? That they should be left in turmoil if something goes wrong, just so that heterosexual families can feel like they're getting a bargain with their tax breaks if they have kids?

Incentivising the nuclear family comes first as it is the most beneficial structure for a child to be raised in.

I've already explained, that in situations where there are LGBT families I would be willing to compromise if there was a third parent if you will, from another gender actively involved in the childs life. I do think it is crucially important to have both a mother and a father in a childs life, and I think it is their right.

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

Do you really think giving tax breaks to heterosexual families to the exclusion of homosexual families, will somehow make heterosexual families want to get married and have kids more? Why should one group in society suffer to make the other group look more appealing? These are not groups you join by choice, you're born into them, so I fail to see why heterosexual marriages need to be incentivised over homosexual marriages.

I never said that children shouldn't receive assistance in unconventional family units, but that families with a mother and a father should be seen as the best environment for children to be raised in and encouraged above others.

I don't think it is "suffering" for other structures. There are already tax incentives for single mothers, and with this new legislation LGBT couples. I just suggest that couples with both mothers and fathers should receive a larger amount of tax incentives as this situation is optimal for the child.

philologos

Aard wrote: »

On that note, Jakkass, is there any research out there that compares children of opposite-sex parents with those of same-sex parents? I'm genuinely interested.

There probably is, but I think the research I have provided is adequate to say that fathers have a positive effect on their families and that gender does matter.

Aard wrote: »

(Also, is there any reason as to why you didn't answer my previous questions in this thread?)

Your point about the lesbian daughter thing was dealt with already in other posts.

I've dealt with what I think of the custody situation, I don't feel I need to repeat my opinion continually.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

This is from "The Role of the Father in Child Development"

From page 70:

This research is in to families in which there was a father / father figure which has left; not ones in which there never was one at all. Its taken you some days to find a study only tangentially related to what you were arguing.

You have an obsession with the biological parents having control over children in any circumstances. Do you extend that to the biological parents being able to re-take a child they have put up for adoption?

Dwn Wth Vwls

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, this is dismissing the fact that it discusses father-absent homes, and the benefits that fathers bring to families. A family with two mothers is just as father absent as a family with one mother. I have yet to investigate into the role of the mother on the child, but I assume that there are benefits in having a mother involved in a childs life.

The research compares families with two parents to families with one parent. Unless the research compares families with a mother and a father to families with two mothers, it does not prove the point you are trying to claim it does. There is nothing in the research that examines that. You are seeing what you want to see.

It seems to me like you avoid answering this question; There are currently same-sex parents in Ireland who have children, where one parent is the biological mother. The biological father was an anonymous donor, no records exist. They have been raising this child like a married couple for let's say 12 years. If the biological mother dies, the other mother will have no legal rights with the child. Do you think the other mother should not be allowed adopt the child she has raised?

philologos

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

It seems to me like you avoid answering this question; There are currently same-sex parents in Ireland who have children, where one parent is the biological mother. The biological father was an anonymous donor, no records exist. They have been raising this child like a married couple for let's say 12 years. If the biological mother dies, the other mother will have no legal rights with the child. Do you think the other mother should not be allowed adopt the child she has raised?

I've answered this question already. I think they should be only allowed to adopt if there is joint custody with a male relative of the deceased's family. Homosexual males should only be allowed to adopt if there is joint custody with a female relative of the deceased's family.

Aard

And what if no male relative wishes to adopt?

Dwn Wth Vwls

Jakkass wrote: »

I've answered this question already. I think they should be only allowed to adopt if there is joint custody with a male relative of the deceased's family. Homosexual males should only be allowed to adopt if there is joint custody with a female relative of the deceased's family.

So a child grows up for 12 years with its parents, one parent dies, then they have to go into a foster home because the other parent isn't allowed to adopt them since there's no family on either side. How on earth is a foster home better than the mother that raised them for 12 years who just happens to not be biologically related to them? You seriously think two strangers make better parents to a 12 year old than the woman who raised them purely because they are a man and a woman?

Untense

Jakkass wrote: »

As promised:
I would regard them as a family unit, but one that is not ideal for a child to be raised in. I feel that the nuclear family should be incentivised through taxes as the Conservative Party in the UK has advocated.

That's fair enough if you see that as being 'the ideal'. it's also fair enough if you want to encourage it. However, encouraging such an ideal is a very separate issue to legally acknowledging the families who actually exist today, who do not meet this ideal.
They are without any support should problems arise. Do you believe actively dismissing the rights of these 'not so ideal' same-sex families incentivises them to start a new family with someone of the opposite sex? If you're indirectly expressing that argument, can you explain how that works? If you're not expressing that argument, why do you mention it and why do you not support these families?

There probably is, but I think the research I have provided is adequate to say that fathers have a positive effect on their families and that gender does matter.

It's amazing you say that, you're twisting this information to suit your own beliefs. It's only valid to take scientific material like this within its context. For one this is specifically about the role of the father. It is not about the role of the mother and father in a nuclear family.

I could easily cherry pick pieces out to fit my own arguments:

Research summarized in this volume by Patterson goes even further, indicating that the sexual orientation of homosexual fathers does not increase the likelihood that their children will be homosexual, effeminate or maladjusted.

I could extrapolate this point to make a claim for same-sex couples, that they do not affect the raising of a child, and I can do so just as logically as you have extrapolated it to mean mixed-sex nuclear families. Despite this being an article specifically on the role of the father.

In fact it seems to me from the article you're referring to is far more in favour of the contrary - that it's a loving environment that is crucial to the development of a child and that gender doesn't even seem relevant. But I would be taking as big a leap as you did, to make that case from the information here.

But since you went for it first, I'll follow suit:

Page 5
Researchers assessed masculinity in fathers and sons and then determined how strongly the two sets of scores were correlated. To the great suprise of most researchers, however, there was no consistent correlation between the two constructs, a puzzling finding because it seemed to violate a guiding assumption about the crucial functioning served by fathers. If fathers did not make their boys into men, what role did they really serve?

It took a while for psychologist to realise that they had failed to ask, Why should boys want to be like their fathers? Presumably they should only want to resemble fathers whom they liked and respected and with whom their relationships were warm and positive.
In fact, the quality of father-son relationships proved to be a crucial mediating variable: When the relationships between masculine fathers and their sons were good, the boys were indeed more masculine. Subsequent research even suggested that the quality of the father-child relationships was more important than the masculinity of the father. Boys seemed to conform to the sex-role standards of their culture when their relationsips with their fathers were warm, regardless of how masculine the fathers were, even though warmth and intimacy have traditionally been seen as feminine characteristics.

I could equally take this to mean that the gender of the parent is irrelevant, since the boy developed to the gender norms of his society provided his parent were loving, regardless of how attached to their gender they were.
This research doesn't affirm anything about the role of both parents. I could argue this point confirms two mothers will raise a perfectly healthy girl, and that two fathers a perfectly healthy boy.

Some more random snippets from page 5:

A similar conclusion was suggested by research on other aspects of psychosocial adjustment and on achievement: Paternal warmth or closeness appeared beneficial, whereas paternal masculinity appeared to be irrelevent.

I could say this attests to the idea that gender doesn't matter.

The same characteristics are important with regard to maternal influences, suggested that fathers and mothers influence children in similar ways by virtue of nurturant personal and social characteristics.

If they influence children in similar ways, and the point is made that gender roles aren't important, I fail to see how this makes a case for having mixed-sex parents. If anything it contradicts that.

The point is that families with both a mother and a father are more beneficial to the child. I am not convinced that families with two of the same gender are just as capable of raising a child than families with both a mother and a father are.

And it appears that won't change. May I ask why you have such a strong belief on this ? Is it from any sort of personal experience ?

I have already stated that there is ground for compromise which has been received with very little response on this thread:

It's hard to address such a point, for one, any same sex couples I have heard of seem to deem it very important that their child have role models of both genders in their lives anyway. But they're still without the legal backing to support their child in this country because some people are imagining same-sex couples and projecting their worst fears on them.
Have you read up online about any existing same sex couples and tried to find out how they tend to function? Someone earlier linked you to a video blog on youtube. I can send you the link if you wish.

Secondly on that point, how do you propose they enforce such a condition? Polygamous civil marriage?

Finally, if you're prepared to extrapolate that a third parent of a differing sex is good for the child, why can't you infer one level further and say the child can equally receive exposure from other sources besides the parent. Relatives, friends, more importantly creche workers and school teachers who take the child for a great portion of their waking lives, even in their early years and essentially act as their parent.

This would be dismissing the evidence that families with a mother and a father are positive on the child. I understand that you don't like that there are studies out there that do put forward the view that having a mother and a father is beneficial to the child. However, I feel we have to deal with the reality here.

That's just a silly point. For one, the study you put forward doesn't even argue that.
Secondly, I have no problem accepting that. I think everyone who was raised well accepts this very readily as being reality. You know, the vast majority of Irish people, gay or otherwise, have been raised in mixed-gender families. It's not like many of us are alien to the notion.
As someone who has had 25 years of experience with having male and female parents on a full-time basis, I fail to see what it offers me that's so different to had I two mothers or two fathers. Can you give instances?

I can readily point out where my parents behaviour and personalities have affected my development and could give you countless instances of where it was beneficial and not so beneficial to my development. None of it having any bearing on their gender.

philologos

Untense wrote: »

That's fair enough if you see that as being 'the ideal'. it's also fair enough if you want to encourage it. However, encouraging such an ideal is a very separate issue to legally acknowledging the families who actually exist day, who do not meet this ideal.
They are without any support should problems arise. Do you believe actively dismissing the rights of these 'not so ideal' same-sex families incentivises them to start a new family with someone of the opposite sex? If you're indirectly expressing that argument, can you explain how that works? If you're not expressing that argument, why do you mention it and why do you not support these families?

I consider it important to have as many children as possible with both a mother and a father. I feel that this is their right, and if this is indeed the optimal situation for children I think it is only right that the Government support this above all other family units.

Untense wrote: »

And it appears that won't change. May I ask why you have such a strong belief on this ? Is it from any sort of personal experience ?

I guess it is because I've had the privilege of having a good family with both a mother and a father and I have a good relationship with both, and I feel that family is very important and that the traditional family unit of mother, father and children is to be encouraged. I hold family as being one of the most important things in a child's life.

I don't think I will change my opinion because I have strong opinions on the family.

Untense wrote: »

Have you read up online about any existing same sex couples and tried to find out how they tend to function? There are a few with blogs and someone earlier linked you to a video blog on youtube. I can send you the links if you wish.

I knew of two people who were in such a situation. I admit I didn't ask them very much about it because I felt it might have been something a bit personal to discuss.

Untense wrote: »

Secondly on that point, how do you propose they enforce such a condition? Polygamous civil marriage?

No, the other parent doesn't necessarily have to be a partner of either of these people. That isn't a condition. Merely a third person of another gender to regulate the lack of the other.

As for how one would enforce such a condition, what do you mean? There are means of redress that social welfare can use if families do not reach such expectations.

Untense wrote: »

Finally, if you're prepared to extrapolate that a third parent of a differing sex is good for the child, why can't you infer one level further and say the child can equally receive exposure from other sources besides the parent. Relatives, friends, more importantly creche workers and school teachers who take the child for a great portion of their waking lives, even in their early years and essentially act as their parent.

I believe that there should be one person of another gender who is regularly at hand for the child to grow with as well as merely coming into contact

Untense wrote: »

That's just a silly point. And comes across with a tone of one-upmanship. For one, the study you put forward doesn't even argue that.

It shows clear benefits of having a father in ones life than not.

Untense wrote: »

As someone who has had 25 years of experience with having male and female parents on a full-time basis, I fail to see what it offers me that's so different to had I two mothers or two fathers. Can you give instances?

I've provided benefits of having a father in children's lives and even academic journal references for you to look them up. There are plenty more sources where that came from.

Untense wrote: »

I can readily point out where my parents behaviour and personalities have affected my development and could give you countless instances of where it was beneficial and not so beneficial to my development. None of it having any bearing on their gender.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you here. I don't think we are going to come to an agreement any time soon either. I feel the traditional family is worth defending and I feel it is the best family structure. You clearly don't!

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll have to agree to disagree with you here. I don't think we are going to come to an agreement any time soon either. I feel the traditional family is worth defending and I feel it is the best family structure. You clearly don't!

You don't quite seem to grasp that civil marriage does not, in any way, damage the existence of the traditional family structure. It won't make all the fathers in Ireland get divorced and remarry a man. It doesn't have *any* impact on defending the traditional family.

Untense

Jakkass wrote: »

I feel that this is their right, and if this is indeed the optimal situation for children I think it is only right that the Government support this above all other family units.

When you say above all other family units, you seem to mean at the expense of other family units. Can you not hold one up above all others and still allow for the other? Just as the constitution mentions catholicism as having a 'special position' in Ireland but not at the expense of people who practice other religions.

I guess it is because I've had the privilege of having a good family with both a mother and a father and I have a good relationship with both, and I feel that family is very important and that the traditional family unit of mother, father and children is to be encouraged. I hold family as being one of the most important things in a child's life.

I think it's good to own statements like that. You say it in a general way, but in truth it's you you're talking about. It is the most important thing in your life. I can not and would not want to argue with that, it's your life experience. However you are projecting your own experiences on to others and dictating how they should live, based on your positive experience.

I don't think I will change my opinion because I have strong opinions on the family.

Again, I just want to make the point that this is about your family. And that's fair enough.

I knew of two people who were in such a situation. I admit I didn't ask them very much about it because I felt it might have been something a bit personal to discuss.

You might be surprised, they could also be glad you're interested and at least you'll get to better judge from your own experiences if your beliefs ring true or not.

No, the other parent doesn't necessarily have to be a partner of either of these people. That isn't a condition. Merely a third person of another gender to regulate the lack of the other.

I would support that, I'm pretty sure many same-sex parents do this anyway.

It shows clear benefits of having a father in ones life than not.

And two fathers?

You're claiming that I wasn't raised well because I disagree with you? :pac:

Not in slightest, it wasn't a reference to you at all.

I've provided benefits of having a father in children's lives and even academic journal references for you to look them up. There are plenty more sources where that came from.

Which do not mention anything about same-sex families.

Unlike this one specifically mentioning them:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

And this http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

There are lots more.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you here. I don't think we are going to come to an agreement any time soon either. I feel the traditional family is worth defending and I feel it is the best family structure. You clearly don't!

I don't support leaving one group out in the cold in favour of another group. Supporting civil marriage means acknlowledging and providing for one group of people, who are not attacking the other 93% of the population.
If there is no attack, I don't see what is there to defend.

L1011

Untense wrote: »

Just as the constitution mentions catholicism as having a 'special position' in Ireland but not at the expense of people who practice other religions.

Long, long since removed.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/cam/0005/index.html

Untense

MYOB wrote: »

Long, long since removed.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/cam/0005/index.html

Thanks. The reason I brought it up was to draw analogy, which still stands.

philologos

Untense wrote: »

Thanks. The reason I brought it up was to draw analogy, which still stands.

As a non-Catholic, I don't particularly find the Catholic Church as having a special position thing all that offensive, even though it was removed more than a decade before I was born

I don't see how it could be offensive to give credence to the traditional family as being the best structure for a child to be raised in. Especially if it is true.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

As a non-Catholic, I don't particularly find the Catholic Church as having a special position thing all that offensive, even though it was removed more than a decade before I was born

I don't see how it could be offensive to give credence to the traditional family as being the best structure for a child to be raised in. Especially if it is true.

You're still taking an all or nothing approach here. Providing legal protections to non-traditional families does not remove protections from traditional ones. It has no impact on them at all.