Full rights for the LGBT community.

Sandvich

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Disliking the idea of homosexual adoption doesn't make him homophobic.

For his reasons for disliking it and lack of rational argument, yes it does.

It's much more homophobic than gay marriage stuff actually; since it is very much protesting base don an irrational fear of homosexuals around children, or the capability of a same sex couple to raise a child. It has been proven in most studies it is not a major issue. Children's role models do not begin and end with their parents, and it wouldn't be any worse than single parents.

So it is an irrational opinion.

Sandvich

Its all about homosexuals and their "rights" not those of the children.

Funny how the same people often aren't bothered about genuine avenues of child abuse.

Sandvich

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And my point is that the State is a function of society as a whole. Discrimination should be tackled at a societal level rather than the "State" level. This will have a trickle down effect and formulate real change, rather than a superficial imposed "equality".

You have nicely pointed out what can happen when a group assumes control of a State and imposes its values on its citizens.

What are positive and negative influences on society are entirely subjective by the way.

What's with the crazy amount of libertarians in this forum?

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If it ends up granting real rights then by definition it's not superficial imposed equality. Also people are nowhere near as hardy as you say; people tend to accept things as normal within time. Even more so with issues like homosexuality, that have no valid case against them, at all.

You say it's wrong for the state to impose values, yet it's alright for conservatives to impose their values?

Also, it's BS to say that influences on society are completely relative, since by saying that you are making a morally objective statement, meaning you can't use moral relativism as an argument.

oppenheimer1

Sandvich wrote: »

What about women that have male chromosomes? It's a real condition called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MedicalMysteries/story?id=5465752&page=1

Do you go around checking people's "real" sex with an electron microscope? No, so don't be ridiculous.

I wish people would at least admit they just have issues accepting trans people, we could work with that, instead of working backwards from it coming up with pathetic excuses.

One could argue that the person in that article is of the intersex condition. However androgen insensitivity syndrome is very rare and to use such conditions as justification for your position is a bit rich.

Its a sad fact that most people view transsexuals as freaks or at least a bit weird. Like most mental conditions, a lot of people have difficulty in understanding it. People don't understand why depressed people are sad or why anorexics won't eat. It is also a reatively new phenomenon, while gays have been around since ancient Greece, the word transsexual was only coined in the 1950s. Indeed only advances in modern medicine have made "transsexualism" possible. Perhaps because of the latter it could be argued that its an entirely "invented" condition.

That said some people think gender is an entirely learned concept and comes from the ideas of gender identity are all around us such as pink for girls and blue for boys. If that is actually true, then transsexuals couldn't claim that it was something they were "born with".

oppenheimer1

Sandvich wrote: »

What's with the crazy amount of libertarians in this forum?

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If it ends up granting real rights then by definition it's not superficial imposed equality. Also people are nowhere near as hardy as you say; people tend to accept things as normal within time. Even more so with issues like homosexuality, that have no valid case against them, at all.

You say it's wrong for the state to impose values, yet it's alright for conservatives to impose their values?

Also, it's BS to say that influences on society are completely relative, since by saying that you are making a morally objective statement, meaning you can't use moral relativism as an argument.

Yes it is imposed equality. real equality is only achieved when it becomes a non issue, that it isn't even thought of. The day when Pat and Mary can apply for a lets say council flat, and Pat and Pat also apply and both are judged on their own merits rather than saying well 10% of the population identifies as gay so therefore 1 in 10 flats must go to gay couples.

Is that real equality?

oppenheimer1

Sandvich wrote: »

Funny how the same people often aren't bothered about genuine avenues of child abuse.

Indeed it is. Although who would you be suggesting isn't bothered by it?

oppenheimer1

Apogee wrote: »

I'm not aware of any piece of national legislation has been decided in Ireland by plebiscite since 1937 (adoption of the Constitution). The prospect of Civil Partnership or Adoption or any other legislation being put to plebiscite is a non-issue.

If there was a Conservative president s/he could refer the bill to the people if they deemed it to be of national importance. *EDIT: I will see if I can find a source* (It was a long time ago, so I could be wrong on that).

The option for plebiscite exists, but like a lot of things, the power has never been exercised.

Annasopra

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If there was a Conservative president s/he could refer the bill to the people if they deemed it to be of national importance. Our current president said she would not sign an abortion bill into law while she was in office, if I can recall her election promises. (It was a long time ago, so I could be wrong on that).

The option for plebiscite exists, but like a lot of things, the power has never been exercised.

I'm almost certain Mary McAleese never said that - she couldn't say that as it would be unconstitutional for her to refuse to sign

Sulmac

I think it was Dana (:rolleyes:) that said that, showing that she didn't quite understand the powers or functions of the office she was running for.

oppenheimer1

Sulmac wrote: »

I think it was Dana (:rolleyes:) that said that, showing that she didn't quite understand the powers or functions of the office she was running for.

Thats probably more accurate as it seems to fit her profile better. Point retracted.

Karl Hungus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

One could argue that the person in that article is of the intersex condition. However androgen insensitivity syndrome is very rare and to use such conditions as justification for your position is a bit rich.

Interestingly enough, by modern medical standards transsexuality could be considered part of a spectrum of intersexuality, considering that the causes are linked to the androgen receptor gene (source), so I think you'll find it is a perfectly reasonable comparison with a person who has androgen insensitivity syndrome.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its a sad fact that most people view transsexuals as freaks or at least a bit weird. Like most mental conditions, a lot of people have difficulty in understanding it. People don't understand why depressed people are sad or why anorexics won't eat.

It's not a mental condition, as I'm sure you now understand from my above point, but also here is a study I had linked earlier in this thread that shows how it's neurobiological in nature. I'd say the main difficulty that people have with understanding it comes from the misconception that it is psychological in nature.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It is also a reatively new phenomenon, while gays have been around since ancient Greece, the word transsexual was only coined in the 1950s. Indeed only advances in modern medicine have made "transsexualism" possible. Perhaps because of the latter it could be argued that its an entirely "invented" condition.

It's certainly not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination, considering that the Hijra in India and Pakistan have been around for centuries, so it cannot be argued that it's a condition only brought about by modern medical science, nor can it be argued that it's "invented" at all.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

That said some people think gender is an entirely learned concept and comes from the ideas of gender identity are all around us such as pink for girls and blue for boys. If that is actually true, then transsexuals couldn't claim that it was something they were "born with".

The concept that gender or gender identity is something that's "learned" is completely outdated though, and more or less disproved now. Watch this documentary; Dr. Money and the boy with no penis. It certainly shows how gender is indeed something a person is born with and cannot be learned or imprinted upon them, but is an extremely tragic story.

Your views on the subject are fairly misinformed, Oppenheimer. That's not a slight against you of course, as I had said in my last post that I really know very little at all about the subject, and pretty much all my information here comes from very quick searches on google, youtube and wikipedia, just some casual research into it, but I think that just serves to underline just how little people in general understand about transsexualism or transgender issues. It's just not something that people know much about in general, and society's understanding does have a long way to go.

oppenheimer1

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Interestingly enough, by modern medical standards transsexuality could be considered part of a spectrum of intersexuality, considering that the causes are linked to the androgen receptor gene (source), so I think you'll find it is a perfectly reasonable comparison with a person who has androgen insensitivity syndrome.



It's not a mental condition, as I'm sure you now understand from my above point, but also here is a study I had linked earlier in this thread that shows how it's neurobiological in nature. I'd say the main difficulty that people have with understanding it comes from the misconception that it is psychological in nature.



It's certainly not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination, considering that the Hijra in India and Pakistan have been around for centuries, so it cannot be argued that it's a condition only brought about by modern medical science, nor can it be argued that it's "invented" at all.



The concept that gender or gender identity is something that's "learned" is completely outdated though, and more or less disproved now. Watch this documentary; Dr. Money and the boy with no penis. It certainly shows how gender is indeed something a person is born with and cannot be learned or imprinted upon them, but is an extremely tragic story.

Your views on the subject are fairly misinformed, Oppenheimer. That's not a slight against you of course, as I had said in my last post that I really know very little at all about the subject, and pretty much all my information here comes from very quick searches on google, youtube and wikipedia, just some casual research into it, but I think that just serves to underline just how little people in general understand about transsexualism or transgender issues. It's just not something that people know much about in general, and society's understanding does have a long way to go.

The study you linked to used 6 transsexuals in their paper. Hardly conclusive, although does show that there may be something that needs to be researched further. One cannot be sure if the patients brains studied haven't been effected by the hormones they have been taking either. What does it matter if its physiological or psychological anyway? Would it really be better if they were "born that way?"

The question I was answering was why there seems to be more hostility towards trans than gays, and its quite simply people think these people are weird, very weird. Its a very new concept to western society, the first gender reassignment surgery was in the 1930s and the word to describe it only came about in the 1950s. If its as old and common as you make it out to be then there would have been a word for it.

This in no way represents my own opinion on the matter anyway.

Karl Hungus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The study you linked to used 6 transsexuals in their paper. Hardly conclusive, although does show that there may be something that needs to be researched further.

Sure, the study about neuron numbers only had 6 subjects to work with, but other study reported in the BBC article I linked had 112 subjects. Those aren't the only studies on the matter either, there's plenty of others out there that show the neurobiological basis for transsexuality, here for example, is another interesting study showing different responses in the hypothalamus. All of these studies have tested different things, but certainly show the same conclusion, that transsexuality is a biological condition rather than a psychological one. Indeed, one of those studies alone might not be conclusive, but there's plenty of separate studies that all pretty much corroborate such findings.

I would agree though that more research needs to be done.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

One cannot be sure if the patients brains studied haven't been effected by the hormones they have been taking either.

Actually, it is pointed out in the study "Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood did not seem to have influenced BSTc neuron numbers".

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What does it matter if its physiological or psychological anyway? Would it really be better if they were "born that way?"

You don't think it matters? I'd say it matters quite a lot. People will view someone very differently depending on whether or not they think they person has what is essentially a birth defect, or if they're just mentally ill. Is it better if someone is born that way? Well, that's debatable, but you do have to consider that how a physiological condition is treated is very differently to how a psychological condition is treated. I think society's reaction to transgender individuals would be significantly different if more people understood that it was a physiological condition that people were born with, rather than the view that those individuals are merely mentally ill.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The question I was answering was why there seems to be more hostility towards trans than gays, and its quite simply people think these people are weird, very weird. Its a very new concept to western society, the first gender reassignment surgery was in the 1930s and the word to describe it only came about in the 1950s. If its as old and common as you make it out to be then there would have been a word for it.

Sure, you're right that the treatment of transgender people in medical science is only a fairly recent concept, in regards to hormone treatments and gender reassignment, so that's certainly something that makes the issue far more visible, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist before then. You made the point of stating that gays had been around since ancient Greece, so I showed an example of transsexualism in another culture that dates back hundreds of years, and if you read the article, it also details what could be considered a primitive form of sex reassignment surgery (removal of the sexual organs). I think just because we've only got words to describe the condition now doesn't really make much of a difference, in the last century western society has made plenty of new discoveries, but all that shows is that they were relatively undocumented before.

Sandvich

The study you linked to used 6 transsexuals in their paper. Hardly conclusive, although does show that there may be something that needs to be researched further.

I hate when people do this.

Oh hai, your research is imperfect. That means there's plenty of room for the common ignorance theory which has no evidence to back it at all. This is how most people seem to approach these kind of studies; and I'm sure from a researcher's perspective it must be frustrating to do all that work and only preach to the choir.

I think that a deeper attitude needs to be addressed than just getting people to "accept" one thing or another as normal.

Apogee

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If there was a Conservative president s/he could refer the bill to the people if they deemed it to be of national importance. *EDIT: I will see if I can find a source* (It was a long time ago, so I could be wrong on that).

The president cannot refer a bill to the people on a whim.

It firstly requires "a majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann" to petition her, followed by consultation with the Council of State. Leaving aside the fact that the government usually has a solid majority in the Seanad, frankly, if anything like that were to happen, it would lead to a full blown political crisis and the probable fall of the government.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The option for plebiscite exists, but like a lot of things, the power has never been exercised.

Nobody said a piece of legislation cannot be put to plebiscite. But why you think there is the remotest possibility that this legislation would be put to plebiscite, going against the convention of the past 73 years, is far from clear to me.

Sandvich

Gingers shouldn't be allowed adopt.

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-redheaded-girl-dyes-hair-to-escape-death-threats/?eref=RSS

oppenheimer1

Apogee wrote: »

The president cannot refer a bill to the people on a whim.

It firstly requires "a majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann" to petition her, followed by consultation with the Council of State. Leaving aside the fact that the government usually has a solid majority in the Seanad, frankly, if anything like that were to happen, it would lead to a full blown political crisis and the probable fall of the government.


Nobody said a piece of legislation cannot be put to plebiscite. But why you think there is the remotest possibility that this legislation would be put to plebiscite, going against the convention of the past 73 years, is far from clear to me.

I'm not getting into an argument on the Constitution with you

My point was that a clear majority oppose gay adoption in Ireland. Therefore if it was by popular vote the proposal would fail.

oppenheimer1

Sandvich wrote: »

I hate when people do this.

Oh hai, your research is imperfect. That means there's plenty of room for the common ignorance theory which has no evidence to back it at all. This is how most people seem to approach these kind of studies; and I'm sure from a researcher's perspective it must be frustrating to do all that work and only preach to the choir.

I think that a deeper attitude needs to be addressed than just getting people to "accept" one thing or another as normal.

If you are going to extrapolate the data and apply to an entire population then of course the sample size matters. There are all sorts of biases that could be introduced. When a researcher is looking for something they have a tendency to see it - Experimenters Bias. Also lacking in clarity was how the transsexuals were chosen? Was it self selection? Indeed with only 6 subjects their findings could be a statistical aberration. Indeed who funded the research is often an important question.

The study is interesting, but far from conclusive.

Karl Hungus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If you are going to extrapolate the data and apply to an entire population then of course the sample size matters. There are all sorts of biases that could be introduced. When a researcher is looking for something they have a tendency to see it - Experimenters Bias. Also lacking in clarity was how the transsexuals were chosen? Was it self selection? Indeed with only 6 subjects their findings could be a statistical aberration. Indeed who funded the research is often an important question.

The study is interesting, but far from conclusive.

I think you've missed that the subjects were deceased, hence the small number available for the study, and you're going on to suggest some sort of bias because of such a number. In your other post you suggested that the brains studied could have been effected by hormones, despite the study stating otherwise. It looks like you're just trying to pick holes in something that you only seem to have given a cursory glance.

Sure, like I said before, that study on it's own isn't conclusive, but you're looking at it isolation and ignoring the other studies linked. So, what's your point here? Is it that if you can perceive a flaw with or otherwise cast doubt on one piece of research, you can discount the rest as well? What is it you're getting at?

Apogee

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm not getting into an argument on the Constitution with you

That's probably just as well.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

My point was that a clear majority oppose gay adoption in Ireland. Therefore if it was by popular vote the proposal would fail.

And as already been pointed out to you, people can already adopt regardless of orientation. Future changes to recognise Civil Partnerships in Adoption Law require no public vote, so you can speculate on "what ifs" all you like and it won't make the slightest difference.

oppenheimer1

Apogee wrote: »

That's probably just as well.



And as already been pointed out to you, people can already adopt regardless of orientation. Future changes to recognise Civil Partnerships in Adoption Law require no public vote, so you can speculate on "what ifs" all you like and it won't make the slightest difference.

Yes, but gay couples are not currently allowed to adopt. As for legislation, well would the government really take a deeply unpopular line and damage itself for a cause that it doesn't need to. There will have to be broad support across the majority of the population before they will consider taking the step. 80% of people support some form of civil partnership yet the government is dragging its heels as they feel it could be quite divisive.

As regards the transsexual issue from earlier Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome presents researchers with a problem. These people are able to identify with the gender that they are not meant to be chromasomally. Because of this it could be that male brain in a female body doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If gender wasn't learned and influenced by hormones then these people would all have gender issues, but they don't.

Finally in research, if you look hard enough for patterns you want to see, you will eventually see them.

philologos

I think we should also consider the rights of the child, as opposed to those of the adoptive parents in situations like these.

I personally would hold that it is a right for a child to be raised with both a mother and a father, as both of these have positive roles in their development. A woman cannot replace a father, and a man cannot replace a mother.

The State should hold first preference to the biological family amongst other family structures, which I would consider positive discrimination.

The term "progressing" is being thrown around a lot. I'm not sure if it progressive to radically change the family structure from the traditional model of a mother and a father legally.

I don't see any major issue with formalising a relationship, but when we talk families, the welfare of the children has to come first.

Karl Hungus

Jakkass, by that rationale, do you also oppose a single parent's right to raise a child?

philologos

It wouldn't be preferrable, but you can't really stop separation, divorce, or just breaking up a relationship. I think it'd be best if the child did have a father of some form, in a future relationship perhaps.

I would personally hold that a stable relationship (preferrably marriage) should be a prerequisite before having children.

Providing children families with both a mother and a father in as many cases as possible should be the State's priority even if that involves positive discrimination as to who can parent.

Dr. Baltar

Jakkass wrote: »

I think we should also consider the rights of the child, as opposed to those of the adoptive parents in situations like these.

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&source=hp&q=DYING+ROOMS+CHINA&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=f3a2f2d0bf3c98c7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94trCVCrLo

Personally, I think I would rather be raised by two dads than be left to go insane and die.

I personally would hold that it is a right for a child to be raised with both a mother and a father, as both of these have positive roles in their development.

Single parents are just as caring and loving to their children as two parents. Two parents is of course better, and this has been researched and proven. It has also been researched and proven that children of LGB parents do as good/better than children of straight parents.

http://www.colage.org/resources/facts.htm

This has been researched in Canada, the Netherlands and other countries and has been proven true time and time again. If you would like to find some direct links to those studies PM me or something.

A woman cannot replace a father, and a man cannot replace a mother.

A mother and a father are not necessary. See above, and see the people that you meet everyday who are raised by a single parent.

The State should hold first preference to the biological family amongst other family structures, which I would consider positive discrimination.

Why? Is a biological family "better" than a family who adopts children? Why do you think this, and more importantly do you have any sources to support your argument?

The term "progressing" is being thrown around a lot. I'm not sure if it progressive to radically change the family structure from the traditional model of a mother and a father legally.

Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, there are LGB families in Ireland right now at this very moment. Just like you cannot stop people taking drugs you cannot stop a loving family from having a child.
eg. Bisexual man has a child, wife dies in childbirth, he then gets into a relationship with a man where both guys raise the child. Said bisexual man then also dies, and his partner (who has raised the kid) has no right to have custody of the kid he has raised.

Regardless of whether you like it, alternative families exist. This will never change.

I don't see any major issue with formalising a relationship, but when we talk families, the welfare of the children has to come first.

I agree, see my first point. Being adopted is better than living in an orphanage.

philologos

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&source=hp&q=DYING+ROOMS+CHINA&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=f3a2f2d0bf3c98c7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94trCVCrLo

Personally, I think I would rather be raised by two dads than be left to go insane and die.

I don't see what Chinese policy concerning birth, and children has to do with whether or not the traditional family should be upheld above all other family structures.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Single parents are just as caring and loving to their children as two parents. Two parents is of course better, and this has been researched and proven. It has also been researched and proven that children of LGB parents do as good/better than children of straight parents.

http://www.colage.org/resources/facts.htm

The studies vary if one takes a look through them on JSTOR, or any other variety of different journal searches.

The most convincing evidence I've seen in regard to this is what role a father has on a child's life, and what unique role a mother has on a child's life, from other studies.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

This has been researched in Canada, the Netherlands and other countries and has been proven true time and time again. If you would like to find some direct links to those studies PM me or something.

In the past I've been in conversations regarding studies on this forum in relation to family structures. We could get into a "my study is bigger than yours" discussion, or we could merely explain our reasoning. I prefer the latter.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

A mother and a father are not necessary. See above, and see the people that you meet everyday who are raised by a single parent.

I never said LGBT people couldn't organise themselves into a family structure, and I never said a mother and a father were necessary. Rather what I said was that children benefit most from having a mother and a father and that we should support biological families, and families with a mother and a father.

I've already discussed single parents. Its not ideal in comparison to a family with a mother and a father. Many single parents are great at what they do, but I don't think many would suggest that it wouldn't be preferable if their children had an active father and mother in their lives.

It is because it is preferable that I would support the State upholding traditional families above and beyond other family structures.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Why? Is a biological family "better" than a family who adopts children? Why do you think this, and more importantly do you have any sources to support your argument?

Yes, I do. I think a biological family is better because of issues of identity that can arise in other family structures. People should always have the chance to contact, and to know their biological parents even if they themselves mightn't be so eager.

I don't think there is that much difference between an adoptive family with a mother and a father, and a biological family however.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, there are LGB families in Ireland right now at this very moment. Just like you cannot stop people taking drugs you cannot stop a loving family from having a child.
eg. Bisexual man has a child, wife dies in childbirth, he then gets into a relationship with a man where both guys raise the child. Said bisexual man then also dies, and his partner (who has raised the kid) has no right to have custody of the kid he has raised.

Interesting point. I would agree that these people should be supported in the interim, but that the State should ensure that IVF resources, and adoptive services are used by those who can provide a child with both a mother and a father primarily.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Regardless of whether you like it, alternative families exist. This will never change.

I agree with the former, but not the latter.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I agree, see my first point. Being adopted is better than living in an orphanage.

Indeed, and having both a mother and a father involved in a child's life is still important.

Dr. Baltar

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see what Chinese policy concerning birth, and children has to do with whether or not the traditional family should be upheld above all other family structures.

I was raising the point that many Irish families (i can name a few) adopt from foreign countries and not just Ireland. Many asian countries have apalling conditions for children and I was answering your comment in which you states "I think we should also consider the rights of the child, as opposed to those of the adoptive parents in situations like these."

Surely a "gay" family is better than no family.

The studies vary if one takes a look through them on JSTOR, or any other variety of different journal searches.

I haven't found this at all. The studies tend to have the same results all the time. If there are differences in figures then it is miniscule.

The most convincing evidence I've seen in regard to this is what role a father has on a child's life, and what unique role a mother has on a child's life, from other studies.

Can you expand on this? If not for debating purposes, I would be interested to read such studies for my own benefit. Can you link me?

In the past I've been in conversations regarding studies on this forum in relation to family structures. We could get into a "my study is bigger than yours" discussion, or we could merely explain our reasoning. I prefer the latter.

If that is the case, so be it, but that is simply going to end in a debate about why you think a good, conservative family with strong family values is better than my alternative family with liberal values. Surely that's been done to death and akin to asking you to prove the existence of God without sources?

I never said LGBT people couldn't organise themselves into a family structure, and I never said a mother and a father were necessary. Rather what I said was that children benefit most from having a mother and a father and that we should support biological families, and families with a mother and a father.

1. The studies I have read do not agree with this statement. And without getting into studies, I do not see any difference between two men raising a child than a man and a woman.

2. We should support families that are alternative and non-biological too.

I've already discussed single parents. Its not ideal in comparison to a family with a mother and a father. Many single parents are great at what they do, but I don't think many would suggest that it wouldn't be preferable if their children had an active father and mother in their lives.

I doubt that many same sex parents would suggest that it would be preferable if their children had a mother and a father in their lives.

It is because it is preferable that I would support the State upholding traditional families above and beyond other family structures.

I find that very narrow-minded and slightly offensive. All families, and all of our children should be supported equally.

Yes, I do. I think a biological family is better because of issues of identity that can arise in other family structures. People should always have the chance to contact, and to know their biological parents even if they themselves mightn't be so eager.

I completely agree, a child of a same-sex couple should and would have every right to meet their biological parents. In fact I don't see where your point relates to this argument at all?

I don't think there is that much difference between an adoptive family with a mother and a father, and a biological family however.

There are a few things we agree on at least.

Interesting point. I would agree that these people should be supported in the interim, but that the State should ensure that IVF resources, and adoptive services are used by those who can provide a child with both a mother and a father primarily.

Perhaps the mother and father should also be white, catholic, non-ginger and have the latest car so that the children will have a better chance of being accepted in society?

I agree with the former, but not the latter.

If we are to define an alternative family as a family that is not one in which a mother and a father who are married raise a child then I sincerely believe that alternative families will always exist.
There will always be single parents, there will always be gay/bisexual parents, ect. ect. ect. This will not change.

Indeed, and having both a mother and a father involved in a child's life is still important.

But not necessary, and indeed not preferable in my opinion. I believe alternative families and "normal" families are equally capable of raising a child.

philologos

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I was raising the point that many Irish families (i can name a few) adopt from foreign countries and not just Ireland. Many asian countries have apalling conditions for children and I was answering your comment in which you states "I think we should also consider the rights of the child, as opposed to those of the adoptive parents in situations like these."

That's fair enough, but I feel that we should uphold our responsibility to have children in families with both a mother and a father in as many cases as possible or practicable.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Surely a "gay" family is better than no family.

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that LGBT people can't organise a family. Rather what I am saying is that we should try to ensure that 1) most families don't break apart to begin with, 2) most children grow up with both a mother and a father in their lives.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I haven't found this at all. The studies tend to have the same results all the time. If there are differences in figures then it is miniscule.

I think we're being disingenuous.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Can you expand on this? If not for debating purposes, I would be interested to read such studies for my own benefit. Can you link me?

I have cited some in the past. I don't want to bring the debate down the path of "how many studies can I find that says this" rather than actually presenting the reasoning as it appears to us. I don't see any value in such a debate, and I've been in quite a few in the past on this.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

If that is the case, so be it, but that is simply going to end in a debate about why you think a good, conservative family with strong family values is better than my alternative family with liberal values. Surely that's been done to death and akin to asking you to prove the existence of God without sources?

I personally amn't interested in discussing about conservatism, what values a family teaches their kids, or anything like this. Rather I am merely talking about the benefits of the State supporting traditional families, and biological families as a structure in and of themselves.

Naturally, I find conservatism often to be the most reasonable solution, but I'm not going to deal with that on this thread. Due to the character of this discussion, it needn't involve my beliefs on other matters including the existence of God.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

1. The studies I have read do not agree with this statement. And without getting into studies, I do not see any difference between two men raising a child than a man and a woman.

Then I'd advise that you look particularly into research done into the role of fathers in family situations, and the role of mothers in family situations. How they influence children in different ways as they develop. I see a difference, because I can see that mothers do have a very different role in the family than fathers and vice versa.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

2. We should support families that are alternative and non-biological too.

I do think so too, but the traditional family should be regarded as best, and should be encouraged by the State.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I doubt that many same sex parents would suggest that it would be preferable if their children had a mother and a father in their lives.

I would regard the child's right as being above that of the parents. There is a philosophy behind this statement though. It is the difference between relative and objective truths.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I find that very narrow-minded and slightly offensive. All families, and all of our children should be supported equally.

I can only say that I regret any offence caused, but I do not retract my viewpoint on this. I don't intend to cause hurt. The family is something I feel is hugely important, and I feel that we shouldn't be so eager to depart so much from it. Consider it narrow-minded if you will, but I consider it of crucial importance for the State to limit the destruction of the traditional family.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I completely agree, a child of a same-sex couple should and would have every right to meet their biological parents. In fact I don't see where your point relates to this argument at all?

It does relate. It relates very much. In situations such as that of anonymous sperm donation, a child cannot be guaranteed to ever meet his or her true biological father in such a situation.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

There are a few things we agree on at least.

We are both human beings in a common human experience. I'm very sure that we will share agreement on a number of issues by virtue of our mere nature

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Perhaps the mother and father should also be white, catholic, non-ginger and have the latest car so that the children will have a better chance of being accepted in society?

This is trying to play the card that by favouring the normative mother and father situation that it is equivalent to racism, religious hatred, and numerous other things. This is absurd. This is merely a recognition that mothers and fathers form the bedrock of the family, and that this is to continue into the future.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

If we are to define an alternative family as a family that is not one in which a mother and a father who are married raise a child then I sincerely believe that alternative families will always exist.
There will always be single parents, there will always be gay/bisexual parents, ect. ect. ect. This will not change.

This can change. We can set an environment where most children are in a family with a mother and a father, even if it isn't all. We certainly shouldn't regard it as a lost cause to provide this.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

But not necessary, and indeed not preferable in my opinion. I believe alternative families and "normal" families are equally capable of raising a child.

Again, I'm not sure if the evidence is in your favour. Certainly not if we are to look at evidence concerning single parent families and the affect the absence of a parent has, and research that is done into the roles that mothers and fathers both play.

I am willing to say that we are definitely going to disagree on this one.

Again, it is based on what conception of truth we have. I wouldn't be inclined to insist that all modes of family are always equal, or that truths and stances are always equal. Each form has its merits and its drawbacks. I'm willing to admit that it is very possible for an LGBT family to exist, but I would consider it as not being as effective as a family unit with a mother and a father.

Dr. Baltar

Before I begin, my apologies for the delay...

That's fair enough, but I feel that we should uphold our responsibility to have children in families with both a mother and a father in as many cases as possible or practicable.

Personally I believe a child should be adopted by the people who would make better parents. Surely a rich, loving, middle class gay couple would make better parents than a poor drug-addicted straight couple. The gender of the parents is certainly not the most important thing in deciding who should be adopted.

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that LGBT people can't organise a family. Rather what I am saying is that we should try to ensure that 1) most families don't break apart to begin with, 2) most children grow up with both a mother and a father in their lives.

I agree with point (1 completely. The destruction of a family is both sad and heartbreaking for many people, but I must stress that it is often necessary. The introduction of divorce for example was something that this country should be very proud of. It allowed many victims of domestic abuse to leave their partner for example.

2) This is where we fundamentally disagree and I don't think there is going to be any "conversion" by either of us. I think that a child needs positive role models in it's life. Nothing more and nothing else.

I have cited some in the past. I don't want to bring the debate down the path of "how many studies can I find that says this"

That is fair enough, but I would encourage those reading the thread to do the research as I believe it will be very LGB positive.

rather than actually presenting the reasoning as it appears to us. I don't see any value in such a debate, and I've been in quite a few in the past on this.

Sure, no problem, but I do think we're going to end up agreeing to disagree.

I personally amn't interested in discussing about conservatism, what values a family teaches their kids, or anything like this. Rather I am merely talking about the benefits of the State supporting traditional families, and biological families as a structure in and of themselves.

Coolio.

Naturally, I find conservatism often to be the most reasonable solution, but I'm not going to deal with that on this thread. Due to the character of this discussion, it needn't involve my beliefs on other matters including the existence of God.

Same as above.

Then I'd advise that you look particularly into research done into the role of fathers in family situations, and the role of mothers in family situations. How they influence children in different ways as they develop. I see a difference, because I can see that mothers do have a very different role in the family than fathers and vice versa.

Can you give me an overview of such research? I would certainly like to debate it with you without doing the whole "I can find more research than you".

I do think so too, but the traditional family should be regarded as best, and should be encouraged by the State.

Firstly, the state has (in my opinion) no business poking it's nose into my family or anyones family.
It certainly does not have the right to look at my family and give it the thumbs up, A+ rating and a tax cut for our "perfect setup", while giving dirty looks to unmarried/single parent families.

I would regard the child's right as being above that of the parents. There is a philosophy behind this statement though. It is the difference between relative and objective truths.

A child has a right to a childhood. A child has a right to be loved.
A child has a right to an education, safe environment ect.
And LGB family can provide all of this.

I can only say that I regret any offence caused, but I do not retract my viewpoint on this. I don't intend to cause hurt. The family is something I feel is hugely important, and I feel that we shouldn't be so eager to depart so much from it. Consider it narrow-minded if you will, but I consider it of crucial importance for the State to limit the destruction of the traditional family.

The traditional family does not necessarily have to be "destroyed". I simply believe that we as a society need to become more open and acceptable of other forms of family to the traditional family.
I come from the traditional family - Dad works, Mam is a homemaker ect. and I would never consider my growing up to be anymore privilidged than my friends who have been brought up by single/gay parents.

Once again, accepting and embracing alternative family setups is not an attack on the traditional family.

It does relate. It relates very much. In situations such as that of anonymous sperm donation, a child cannot be guaranteed to ever meet his or her true biological father in such a situation.

Then I agree that legisltation certainly needs to be enacted to cover this.

We are both human beings in a common human experience. I'm very sure that we will share agreement on a number of issues by virtue of our mere nature

:cool:

This is trying to play the card that by favouring the normative mother and father situation that it is equivalent to racism, religious hatred, and numerous other things. This is absurd. This is merely a recognition that mothers and fathers form the bedrock of the family, and that this is to continue into the future.

I disagree. Love is the bedrock of the family.


I do not understand why people are so fearful of that which is not the norm. When homosexuality was legalised in 1993 there was uproar. "Next we'll be marrying animals and children" is one of my favourite lines. This hasn't happened, in fact I see no downside so far to furthering of the "Gay Agenda". If you can trust it this much, why not a step further?

This can change. We can set an environment where most children are in a family with a mother and a father, even if it isn't all. We certainly shouldn't regard it as a lost cause to provide this.

Once again, children should enter the home of people who make the better parents. Some same sex couples would be better parents than a lot of straight couples attempting to adopt.

Again, I'm not sure if the evidence is in your favour. Certainly not if we are to look at evidence concerning single parent families and the affect the absence of a parent has, and research that is done into the roles that mothers and fathers both play.

The LGBT community may get slightly offended at what I'm about to say, and if this is the case I apologize in advance.
Most gay couples tend to be formed around one person having very "masculine" energy and the other very "feminine" energy. An example being a butch lesbian and a femme lesbian being together.
If you are worried about a child having a lack of feminine/masculine influence, I don't think that would happen especially considering that child has many other role models to turn to apart from the parents.

I am willing to say that we are definitely going to disagree on this one.

Again, it is based on what conception of truth we have. I wouldn't be inclined to insist that all modes of family are always equal, or that truths and stances are always equal. Each form has its merits and its drawbacks. I'm willing to admit that it is very possible for an LGBT family to exist, but I would consider it as not being as effective as a family unit with a mother and a father.

And this is what it all comes down to. I wonder what a child of a same sex couple would say if you suggested that your family is more effective and better than his/hers. Imagine how that child would feel if you basically said that your parents were better at raising children than his/her parents not because of the love/life that your parents gave you, but simply because one of your parents has their sexual organs on the outside and one on the inside.

billy the squid

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Ok, this thread seems to have gone around in a bit of a twist regarding the addoption issue. Here are my reasons for opposing it.

1) I believe every child needs both female and male role models in their lives. I think the people best suited to this role are the parents. Same sex couples, buy their nature cannot fulfil this role, and sadly the childs emotional development will be lacking.

Not necessarily true, there are thousands of children doing well who do not have a male and female role model in their family.

2) The society in which we live is flawed and doesn't respect differences. Its sad but its also true. It is likely that a child of a same sex couple will be bullied, or at least the difference would be made known to them. It isn't fair to intentionally place the child in the situation where it might experience emotional distress. Bullying, especially in the formative years of a persons life can have a profound effect on a childs development into adulthood.

So in order to prevent homophobic discrimination , we are expected to perpetuate homophobic discrimination. The best way with dealing with how people treat each other is to change society's normative sanctions.