Civil Marriage Protest! 9th August!

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.