David Quinn v Ivana Bacik on Pat Kenny this morning

glic71rods46t0

Just listened to David Quinn (Irish Independent) debate the issue of gay marriage with Ivana Bacik of the Labour Party.
I was very impressed with Quinns points. He won the debate hands down and nailed Bacik over her campaign for gender quotas in politics and the implication of her pro gay marriage position which essentially sees no need for a gender balance when it comes to parenting.
She just had no answer to it despite coming across as a lecturing school teacher. Anyone else listen to it?

DrumSteve

bgwovl1f0948sy wrote: »

Just listened to David Quinn (Irish Independent) debate the issue of gay marriage with Ivana Bacik of the Labour Party.
I was very impressed with Quinns points. He won the debate hands down and nailed Bacik over her campaign for gender quotas in politics and the implication of her pro gay marriage position which essentially sees no need for a gender balance when it comes to parenting.
She just had no answer to it despite cominga cross as a lecturing school teacher. Anyone else listen to it?

Is it online yet? Not a fan of Bacik to be honest.

glic71rods46t0

I dont know if its online yet - I listened to it live. And yeah, Bacik is not very likeable to be honest

Dave!

Heard it too, and thought Quinn probably won the debate also.

I thought that Pat was a bit tougher on Bacik than on Quinn.

Poor Leo Varadkar in the next segment wasn't sure if he was allowed to give his opinion (he said in the end that he would probably vote Yes)

byronbay2

David Quinn nailed Ivana Bacik?? Aargh - there's an image that will be in my mind for the rest of the day!!!:(

Dirk Gently

Bacik does more harm than good tbh, there's a reason why no one votes for her. Didn't hear the debate but it wouldn't be difficult to catch out Bacik. Gender quotas are a good way of catching out someone who believes in gender quotas. Sounds like a good ambush.

glic71rods46t0

Dave! wrote: »

Heard it too, and thought Quinn probably won the debate also.

I thought that Pat was a bit tougher on Bacik than on Quinn.

Poor Leo Varadkar in the next segment wasn't sure if he was allowed to give his opinion (he said in the end that he would probably vote Yes)

On reflection I agree with you, Pat probably was tougher on Bacik. I sense that he is personally against gay marriage (not that that should be allowed to influence his refereeing of the debate).
I think that Pat didnt like Bacik's preaching and forceful style. He made a good point on a "hierarchy" of parenting that Bacik didnt deal with effectively - she just tried to side step it and it weakened her position but I think it was Quinn who landed the sucker punch!

iptba

bgwovl1f0948sy wrote: »

Just listened to David Quinn (Irish Independent) debate the issue of gay marriage with Ivana Bacik of the Labour Party.
I was very impressed with Quinns points. He won the debate hands down and nailed Bacik over her campaign for gender quotas in politics and the implication of her pro gay marriage position which essentially sees no need for a gender balance when it comes to parenting.

I'm not convinced Ivana Bacik really believes much in the importance of gender balance, in that, if there are few or no men on a board, etc, that she would have a major problem with it.

Fenian Army

Bacik is probably the least likable senator there is... and thats saying something. I've met her a number of times and she always come across as arrogant and smarmy.

This comes across strongly in media appearances especially when she is under pressure.

I find myself instantly sympathetic to the other side... despite agreeing with her on lots of things (gender quotas etc).

Generally she is an asset to the "other side" in debates.

K-9

Fenian Army wrote: »

I find myself instantly sympathetic to the other side... despite agreeing with her on lots of things (gender quotas etc).

David Quinn is probably about the only person that would make me sympathetic towards Ivana!

Zulu

no sign of it on RTE yet, anyone know anywhere else it might be?

Fenian Army

K-9 wrote: »

David Quinn is probably about the only person that would make me sympathetic towards Ivana!

Saw a funny comment on p.ie... throw in twink and you have the guest list from hell

jonniebgood1

I thought Pat did play more of a part in the debate than a neutral host should. If Quinn was struggling he took up his points and agreed with them. I would be wary of Quinns controlling wishes and that came through in the debate also. Actually both participants have a way of making you agree with the other side of the argument when they speak. Is'nt Quinn part of the ultra conservative IONA institute-

The Iona Institute promotes the place of marriage and religion in society. We defend the continued existence of publicly-funded denominational schools. We also promote freedom of conscience and religion.

The Iona Institute is headed by religious and social affairs commentator, David Quinn. http://ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=75

Enough said- he as leader of IONA is in favour of segregation of children from 4 years old.

iptba

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Enough said- he as leader of IONA is in favour of segregation of children from 4 years old.

I've heard some feminists argue it would be better for girls if they had single-sex education. And many people of all sorts* seem to make this choice in Ireland.

* well, mainly Catholics because others don't generally have the choice, but I'm not sure it's a choice that would be restricted to this group otherwise, or at least I'm not sure it's a choice necessarily inspired by the parents' Catholic views - I think it's more they believe it might lead to more L. Cert points.

spank_inferno

I agree, Quinn shaded it.

Bacik was stumped on the gender quotas in politics vs parenting point.

However the best moment came later when Pat asked Leo V his opinion and he was not sure if he was allowed to do so

daltonmd

Fenian Army wrote: »

Bacik is probably the least likable senator there is... and thats saying something. I've met her a number of times and she always come across as arrogant and smarmy.

This comes across strongly in media appearances especially when she is under pressure.

I find myself instantly sympathetic to the other side... despite agreeing with her on lots of things (gender quotas etc).

Generally she is an asset to the "other side" in debates.

I think that given the selection of political females we have in this country, she is one of the better ones, actually I am trying to see who comes across better.

Claire Daly?
Lucinda Creighton?
Averil Power?

secman

I listened to the debate live, when you get totally opposing far right and far left people debating such topics you can get switched off by their extreme views. I would prefer to hear a debate by middle ground people on both sides, would be a less "preachy" type debate.

On a personal note there was a time when I would have vehemently opposed same sex marriage but I now have a beautiful grandson by my lovely daughter who happens to be in a "same sex" releationship. I have copped on big time, God the views I used to have ............

Secman

iptba

This point doesn't relate to gay marriage specifically: Something I noticed was Senator Bacik's objection to the suggestion that there might be a hierarchy in the circumstances that are best for a child to be brought up in. She seemed to be suggesting (at least for some of the interview) she didn't want it to be discussed as it might be insulting to other parents or children. Maybe her stance was a bit more nuanced that that at other stages (I didn't fully catch an aside from her) but this approach is something I don't like i.e. we shouldn't discuss something because it might insult somebody or, more particularly, your opinion is incorrect or shouldn't be said because it might insult somebody (rather than the more important point, the merits or otherwise of the points raised).

I have no idea whether the research shows outcomes for gay parents are as good as, or even better than, two biological parents. But I think discussing the best circumstances for a child to be raised seems an important part of a discussion like this. And it seems reasonable to talk about a hierarchy to at least some extent i.e. that research might show some average trends, some of which might show some pronounced differences e.g. that being with raised by your two biological parents in a loving relationship gives better results on average than, say, being raised by a single grandparent. Anyway, my general point is that I don't like discussions being stifled. Thankfully anonymous internet discussion boards mean this is more difficult to do.

poeticseraphim

iptba wrote: »

This point doesn't relate to gay marriage specifically: Something I noticed was Senator Bacik's objection to the suggestion that there might be a hierarchy in the circumstances that are best for a child to be brought up in. She seemed to be suggesting (at least for some of the interview) she didn't want it to be discussed as it might be insulting to other parents or children. Maybe her stance was a bit more nuanced that that at other stages (I didn't fully catch an aside from her) but this approach is something I don't like i.e. we shouldn't discuss something because it might insult somebody or, more particularly, your opinion is incorrect or shouldn't be said because it might insult somebody (rather than the more important point, the merits or otherwise of the points raised).

I have no idea whether the research shows outcomes for gay parents are as good as, or even better than, two biological parents. But I think discussing the best circumstances for a child to be raised seems an important part of a discussion like this. And it seems reasonable to talk about a hierarchy to at least some extent i.e. that research might show some average trends, some of which might show some pronounced differences e.g. that being with raised by your two biological parents in a loving relationship gives better results on average than, say, being raised by a single grandparent. Anyway, my general point is that I don't like discussions being stifled. Thankfully anonymous internet discussion boards mean this is more difficult to do.

Not all people who marry want to become parents. It is a separate debate.

Also gay people must adopt or use some artificial means and can currently do so but must go through a single adoption rather than a joint one. Marriage laws have not stopped people having children ..especially for women...but they do make it so that it must be a single adoption..one parent adopts and the other is not considered a parent legally.

So not being able to marry does not affect whether they have children or not.

If you wanted to prevent gay couples having children you would have to address current adoption laws and regulation regarding reproduction using artificial means. Those are the only laws affecting whether they have kids.

This is about gay marriage.

It would enable joint adoptions together (Irish law does not allow non married couples straight or gay to adopt together ..but one parent can adopt as a singole parent the other parent has no legal rights though ) they already can adopt ..it would just make stable probably and give rights to both parents..


But not all gay people who marry want kids

Legislate on the issues separately
Stopping one does not stop the other ..nor does allowing one allow the other
I support gay marriage and gay adoption btw

Anyway we have single parent families and single parent adoptions...so i dont know how you can argue that we enforce gender balance for gay people not not straight people

And
'Sexual orientation of parents has no bearing on children's emotional, behavioral or psychosocial adjustment, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.'

Studies show that children raised by gay parents are similar in emotional health statistically as children raised by heterosexual parents.

poeticseraphim

Interesting...the rest of the world is changing


A few days ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18690348

France gives gay couples the right to marry, adopt, etc, equally.

Pride Fighter

David Quinn belongs in the stone age with the rest of his fanatical ideas. He is a danger to society, a homophobic misogynist that wants women back in the kitchen and non-Catholics sent to a gulag.

aggresso

bgwovl1f0948sy wrote: »

Just listened to David Quinn (Irish Independent) debate the issue of gay marriage with Ivana Bacik of the Labour Party.
I was very impressed with Quinns points. He won the debate hands down and nailed Bacik over her campaign for gender quotas in politics and the implication of her pro gay marriage position which essentially sees no need for a gender balance when it comes to parenting.
She just had no answer to it despite coming across as a lecturing school teacher. Anyone else listen to it?

Sometimes it's very effective to come across as a school teacher, particularly when your debating partner leaves himself open to being portrayed as a rude teenager.

Judge for yourselves, people:

http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A3339832%3A133%3A%3A

Kinski

Did I just listen to the same debate as the OP? Quinn was atrocious, entirely devoting his opening statements to strawmaning, and baselessly asserting that marriage should be/is primarily by about the rights of children, despite also acknowledging that there were marriages in which children play no part - how can he reconcile those positions? The gender quota point flows from that faulty assertion, and is anyway, as Bacik points out, a comparison between institutions which are in no way alike.

On the topic of gay marriage more generally, an opinion poll by Red C taken in February placed support for a constitutional recognition of same-sex unions at 73%. This in Ireland, where less than 20yrs ago a proposal to legalise divorce just squeaked through...conservatives have lost this one already; IMO it's just a matter of time before gay couples enjoy the same rights as heterosexual ones.

iptba

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Anyway we have single parent families and single parent adoptions...so i dont know how you can argue that we enforce gender balance for gay people not not straight people

This is not an issue I follow much. I would have thought social workers when deciding which is a more secure environment, would choose a married couple over a single person in general.

The Corinthian

Bacik came out badly in that discussion not because Quinn had the better overall argument, but because of flaws in Bacik's own views that were all too easy to expose.

Gender quotas as a form of positive discrimination are designed to essentially redress an imbalance where one gender is grossly underrepresented. If you support gender quotas on this basis, you are setting yourself up for where gender quotas can end up being employed in ways you would prefer weren't.

And that's where he got her, not on the strength of his own position but the weakness of hers.

poeticseraphim

iptba wrote: »

This is not an issue I follow much. I would have thought social workers when deciding which is a more secure environment, would choose a married couple over a single person in general.

You would be wrong.
Not all the time ....about 1/5 of adoptions in Ireland are single parents..i think thats only Irish children not foreign adoptions.

As far as i know this is the situation...although correct me please if anyone knows differently
Irish children are nigh on impossible to adopt ...all couples and singles are usually talking about a foreign adoption.

Plenty of single people adopt in Ireland....they go to their HSE foreign adoption office to start the process.
As far as i know they must satify the criteria for adoption here in Ireland after for it to be recognised.
If adopting an Irish child unless the child is related to the couple or single person they must prove it is in the inetersts of the child to an adoption board.

A lot of the time the child may have been in the care of that single person or couple for a long time due to a family death or whatever.

There decision is based on that child and that situation....

They have no agendas other than the welfare of that child....

Adoption takes years and they will choose the best situation.

And they are happy for single people to foster....infact the system would probably be in a worse state without single foster parents with 6000 kids in care right now.

The only goal is to do whats best for the child...if a board feels putting a child with a single parent rather than a couple is i the best interests of that child they will do so and visa versa

Foreign adoption is different though ...and it is the most common form of adoption in Ireland.

But they actually don't go in with any other agenda than current legisation and what is best in each situation and individuals...and it is a board that makes the decision.

iptba

poeticseraphim wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I would have thought social workers when deciding which is a more secure environment, would choose a married couple over a single person in general.

You would be wrong.
Not all the time ....about 1/5 of adoptions in Ireland are single parents..i think thats only Irish children not foreign adoptions.

As far as i know this is the situation...although correct me please if anyone knows differently
Irish children are nigh on impossible to adopt ...all couples and singles are usually talking about a foreign adoption.

Plenty of single people adopt in Ireland....they go to their HSE foreign adoption office to start the process.
As far as i know they must satify the criteria for adoption here in Ireland after for it to be recognised.
If adopting an Irish child unless the child is related to the couple or single person they must prove it is in the inetersts of the child to an adoption board.

A lot of the time the child may have been in the care of that single person or couple for a long time due to a family death or whatever.

There decision is based on that child and that situation....

They have no agendas other than the welfare of that child....

Adoption takes years and they will choose the best situation.

And they are happy for single people to foster....infact the system would probably be in a worse state without single foster parents with 6000 kids in care right now.

The only goal is to do whats best for the child...if a board feels putting a child with a single parent rather than a couple is i the best interests of that child they will do so and visa versa

Foreign adoption is different though ...and it is the most common form of adoption in Ireland.

But they actually don't go in with any other agenda than current legisation and what is best in each situation and individuals...and it is a board that makes the decision.

You seem to be answering a different question: who actually currently adopts. That's not the same thing as whether if the social workers/those on the adoption board had a "clean case" (i.e. where there was nobody who had previously cared for the child interested in adopting them), whether they would be more likely to choose a married couple over a single person.

(But thanks for taking the time to give information)

RedRightHand

Pride Fighter wrote: »

David Quinn belongs in the stone age with the rest of his fanatical ideas. He is a danger to society, a homophobic misogynist that wants women back in the kitchen and non-Catholics sent to a gulag.

David Quinn's views on same sex marriage are no different to Peter Thatchell's views on it about a decade ago. The campaign for marriage rights is more about routing out dissenters than equality.

Pedant

If you want to win a debate on marriage equality, you don't mix gay marriage in with militant feminism and gender quotas. That only makes moderates uncomfortable.

If you want to a debate in marriage equality, let it be about marriage equality and nothing else.

I for one am vehemently against gender quotas, but at the same time I vehemently support marriage equality and equal rights for same-sex couples in the adoption process. I don't like the terms "gay marriage" and "gay adoption". In a sense, calling it "gay marriage" makes it look as something different to ordinary marriage, which it isn't and shouldn't.

poeticseraphim

iptba wrote: »

You seem to be answering a different question: who actually currently adopts. That's not the same thing as whether if the social workers/those on the adoption board had a "clean case" (i.e. where there was nobody who had previously cared for the child interested in adopting them), whether they would be more likely to choose a married couple over a single person.

(But thanks for taking the time to give information)

It would depend on other factors earning ability and economic socio status....pyschological assement etc...i am not saying that relationship staus would play a part but it might not be the most important factor at all. If a couple are smokers .etc and a single parent is not ...it might chnage the way each case wouuld be processed giving the single person preference.

But it actually does not work that way...there are so few Irish babies to adopt you would be waiting years and years and still possibly not get to adopt either as a single parent or a couple.

The vast amount of adoptions are foreign adoptions...and there is a different ratio of children to parents...especially for disabled or older children...it might be a little more challenging than for a couple..but once they get through the hoops i don't know that is a deciding factor..

China for instance limits the number of dossiers it accepts eah year from single parents but if it accepts a dossier then the application goes through as normal

Ethiopia is happy to accept single parent applications as they have many orphans..likewise with Guatamala are very single parent friendly...
Foreignadoptions are most common and Finances are really the deciding factor..it can be expensive...and you have to understand..there are a lot of orphans in the world...

For foreign adoptions to be recognised here...the board has to approve you and be convinced it's in the child's best interests. But in a foreign adoption case they cannot offer a couple the child if a single parent has financed it so the orphaned child would go back ..it becomes about simply whether or not they meet the criteria to be a fit parent etc

There may very few Irish child adoptions per year....but 6000 in foster care ...and thousands of orphans abroad .....
In reality adoption boards spend most of their time simply recognising foreign adoptions where no matter who the parent is it is them or the child goes back home....thats the reality. So if they feel the adoptive parent is a safe suitable parent and background checks are done etc then they recognise the adoption as far as i know...there is no option to have a diff couple ..it's that person or nothing....it's usually all done in advance

Finance is the real clincher. And being a safe suitable parent.And if the country is hague convention complient.

Most countries will happily adopt to single women and there may not be that long a waiting list....however single men or gay men often not ..for obvious reasons...although some say its a firewall against gay adoption ..

Again i hope i got all of this right. Anyone correct me if i am wrong.

But the vast majority of adoptions are foreign ...it is a choice of waiting years and years here with no garantee or months with an intercountry adoption. But whoever inititates the foreign adoption is the only choice applicant the Irish board will see.. so it's approve them really or don't approve them and stop the adoption if the person is not a fit parent.. rather than choose..

MadsL

I look forward to the replay of this interview in 20 years, when David Quinn's opinions will be viewed with the same distaste as watching this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFA8V61m1Xc

Wider Road

Pride Fighter wrote: »

David Quinn belongs in the stone age with the rest of his fanatical ideas. He is a danger to society, a homophobic misogynist that wants women back in the kitchen and non-Catholics sent to a gulag.

What a statement to make considering all the people that took time to post on this topic. David Quinn destroyed Ivana full stop.
If anyone disagrees they must go back over the interview & weep.
Ivana should be their focus, why she lost & went loopy?
One Question RemIns,
Was there anyone else to debate other than Ivana?
Yes or No will suffice.

sarumite

Wider Road wrote: »

What a statement to make considering all the people that took time to post on this topic. David Quinn destroyed Ivana full stop.
If anyone disagrees they must go back over the interview & weep.
Ivana should be their focus, why she lost & went loopy?
One Question RemIns,
Was there anyone else to debate other than Ivana?
Yes or No will suffice.

Ivana destroyed Ivana, Quinn was just riding on her self-destruction coattails.

28064212

Wider Road wrote: »

What a statement to make considering all the people that took time to post on this topic. David Quinn destroyed Ivana full stop.

How exactly does this (^) change this (v)?

Pride Fighter wrote: »

David Quinn belongs in the stone age with the rest of his fanatical ideas. He is a danger to society, a homophobic misogynist that wants women back in the kitchen and non-Catholics sent to a gulag.

Winning an argument (particularly against a poor debater) is not some kind of magical game-changer

The Corinthian

28064212 wrote: »

Winning an argument (particularly against a poor debater) is not some kind of magical game-changer

I don't think Bacik is a particularly bad debater or, more correctly, rhetorical speaker. I think her main problem is that she comes from a very ideologically entrenched position politically where one begins with positions and principles and then retrospectively constructs arguments to support them.

That's all very well when you're preaching to the converted, but in the wider political landscape it becomes more difficult to justify as these arguments are rarely truly tested by the converted and so when they are can quickly fall apart.

My guess is that next time she's hit with a similar argument she'll be better prepared. Most likely she'll resort to an appeal to emotion, on the lines of supporting children's rights (which trumps everyone else's rights, typically fathers).

In a TV debate between her and John Waters a while back, on the topic of the 'opt-out' nature of the cohabitation bill, she used such a tactic to great effect; defending "those most vulnerable in society". Waters fluffed it, instead arguing against potential 'gold-diggers', and so lost the argument when in reality he really should have pointed out that she was only defending "those most vulnerable in society" as long as they're women, while vulnerable men are essentially thrown to the wolves.

Then again, I never thought Waters could keep his cool.

jank

Pride Fighter wrote: »

David Quinn belongs in the stone age with the rest of his fanatical ideas. He is a danger to society, a homophobic misogynist that wants women back in the kitchen and non-Catholics sent to a gulag.

In fairness really? Interesting you mention gulag as the only person in that studio who was a Marxist was Ivana.

jank

Listened to it this morning and yes Ivana came across her usual smug self righteous self. David Quinn is David Quinn, you may not agree with him but at least he can debate someone without squawking his opponents name. Saying that I dont like his defense of the church all the time when he should be more conceited.

On this issue itself well on the face of it of course its a no brainier. Marriage or whatever you want to call it should be nobodies business but their own. Seperate private organisations can of course set up their own rules.

However, as a wider discussion of the benefits to society, well he does have a point. Children brought up in a stable, loving marriage between a father and a mother is the best environment. Doesn't mean an environment of grandma or granddad/ gay couples is necessarily bad in fact it could be very good.

One just has to look at the problems that broken marriages can have on society. Case in point the riots last year in the UK, how many of those kids running around looting sports shops came from broken marriage? The statistics for the black community in London is shocking. Same can be said for the US, huge problems there especially in the african-american community.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/44768-race-divide-on-single-parents

A quarter of all youngsters live in one-parent families – treble the proportion in 1972, according to the Office for National Statistics.
The biggest percentage of lone-parent households is among black ethnic groups. Forty-eight per cent of black Caribbean families have one parent, as do 36 per cent of black African households.
Single-parent families are less common among Indians (ten per cent), Bangladeshis (12 per cent), Pakistanis (13 per cent), Chinese (15 per cent) and whites (22 per cent).
Nine out of ten single-parent families are headed by mothers.
Children who grow up without their biological father are more likely to be unemployed, commit crime and leave education early, according to research by think tank Civitas.
They are also twice as likely to be homeless.

So if we are talking about gay marriage what can we also do to improve marriage?

Redlimo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pride Fighter
David Quinn belongs in the stone age with the rest of his fanatical ideas. He is a danger to society, a homophobic misogynist that wants women back in the kitchen and non-Catholics sent to a gulag.

In fairness, I think he's married to a Protestant , so this might not be a fair comment...

MadsL

jank wrote: »

Children brought up in a stable, loving marriage between a father and a mother is the best environment.

The best? As opposed to a stable, loving relationship between two people?

Again, people ask what is the harm of allowing same-sex marriage?

But the real question is whether we still value motherhood and fatherhood. A declaration in favour of same-sex marriage is a declaration that we do not -- because gay marriage completely severs the link between marriage and the goal of uniting children to their mothers and fathers.

So by all means support same-sex marriage, but realise that in doing so you will be denying the value of motherhood and fatherhood. Is that really what you want to do?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-gay-marriage-denies-value-of-motherhood-and-fatherhood-2613962.html

What utter tripe. This in a society that doesn't give any automatic rights to the biological father in unmarried heterosexual relationships except by means of application to the courts. When that is fixed, Quinn can pontificate about "the value of motherhood and fatherhood" in Irish society.

The logical leap of saying that supporting same-sex marriage, is denying the value of motherhood and fatherhood, is absolute tosh. Like saying because you drive a car you are denying the "value of motorcyclists".

Of course we can still value motherhood and fatherhood, we can help fathers and mothers by enabling mechanisms that enable them to rear their children in full legal marriage contracts that do not mean they have to accept something lesser in society's eyes because of their sexual orientation. Dictating that this can only be supported in heterosexual relationships is nonsense.

If an employer cannot discriminate under the law because of their sexual orientation, then why should the State?

iptba

MadsL wrote: »

If an employer cannot discriminate under the law because of their sexual orientation, then why should the State?

An employer can't discriminate against somebody due to their religion, but if a religion encouraged polygamy, would the State automatically be forced to allow it?

The Corinthian

jank wrote: »

So if we are talking about gay marriage what can we also do to improve marriage?

The topics of single parent families and marriage are related, but ultimately separate issues, as I believe that a minority of single parent families were ever married in the first place.

While ideally children should be raised in a stable two-parent environment, where marriage can be seen as a traditional means of 'cementing' the union (although strictly speaking not obligatory), the reality is that to enforce this would mean forcing people not to separate or to only have sex if in such a union.

Higher levels of single-parent families are the inevitable consequence of a society that want's the freedom to have sex outside marriage or divorce/separate. So ultimately it is the price we pay for those freedoms - we can't have it both ways.

This is not to say that the institution of marriage cannot or should not be reformed; with the increased prevalence of marital breakups, the marriage strike and other social effects, it's pretty clear that Worldwide it's under pressure. But that's another can of worms.

jank

MadsL wrote: »

The best? As opposed to a stable, loving relationship between two people?

Then you would be saying that the parenting roles of the mother and father are the exact same, which we all know its not. I did mention the fact that other situations may arise which would lead to very good upbringings for children which you conveniently ignored. I am a realist!

jank

The Corinthian wrote: »

The topics of single parent families and marriage are related, but ultimately separate issues, as I believe that a minority of single parent families were ever married in the first place.

While ideally children should be raised in a stable two-parent environment, where marriage can be seen as a traditional means of 'cementing' the union (although strictly speaking not obligatory), the reality is that to enforce this would mean forcing people not to separate or to only have sex if in such a union.

Higher levels of single-parent families are the inevitable consequence of a society that want's the freedom to have sex outside marriage or divorce/separate. So ultimately it is the price we pay for those freedoms - we can't have it both ways.

This is not to say that the institution of marriage cannot or should not be reformed; with the increased prevalence of marital breakups, the marriage strike and other social effects, it's pretty clear that Worldwide it's under pressure. But that's another can of worms.

Sadly i agree.

Gay marriage or whatever you call it will be passed within a few years yet between now and then the prevalence of single parent families will no doubt increase. Nobody it seems gives a crap about it and as I mentioned in another post the societal affects that this causes is massive especially to the under privileged. Marriage is now longer seen as an act one takes which is for life.

You can be damm sure that the likes of Ivana will take credit for their victory yet abdicate all responsibility when it comes to the institute of marriage itself which is crumbling. If only she was honest about. The stats are shocking.

MadsL

jank wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

The best? As opposed to a stable, loving relationship between two people?

Then you would be saying that the parenting roles of the mother and father are the exact same, which we all know its not. I did mention the fact that other situations may arise which would lead to very good upbringings for children which you conveniently ignored. I am a realist!

Your argument assumes every Father and Mother parent in the same way. See the logical fallacy?

MadsL

iptba wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

If an employer cannot discriminate under the law because of their sexual orientation, then why should the State?

An employer can't discriminate against somebody due to their religion, but if a religion encouraged polygamy, would the State automatically be forced to allow it?

I'm failing to see the relevence tbh. Religious practices are limited to those legal under statute. The State is not 'forced' to permit anything, however the State may be compelled to allow practices under human rights treaties.

K-9

jank wrote: »

Gay marriage or whatever you call it will be passed within a few years yet between now and then the prevalence of single parent families will no doubt increase..

What is your basis for that belief?

Einhard

Pride Fighter wrote: »

David Quinn belongs in the stone age with the rest of his fanatical ideas. He is a danger to society, a homophobic misogynist that wants women back in the kitchen and non-Catholics sent to a gulag.

Ah really, that's a tad unfair. I disagree with Quinnon probably every issue one could raise, but I do think it's important that a variety of voices are heard in society, and sometimes, he does raise interesting and valid points that might not be raised otherwise. Does he hate gays? I have never seen any evidence that he does. And not wanting gay marriage does not equate to hating gays. Does he hate women? Again, I've never seen evidence to support this contention. Indeed, considering that two of the patrons of the IONA institute, Patricia Casey and Breda O' Brien, are professional women, I fail to see how one can argue that the director of said institute wishes that all women remain in the kitchen. Unless one is engaged in ad hominem, that is.

Again, I don't want to be seen to be defending Quinn, or people like him. But I don't like the trend towards character assassination and personal attack as a response to certain commentators, usually those who are Catholic and conservative. It's generally unwarranted, and seems, inronically, to be totally lacking in the liberal values which its exponents claim to espouse.

As for the topic at hand: it matters not to me who won the debate. Equal rights means full marriage rights for gay couples, and until they're granted, we should stop claiming that we're a society of equals.

Einhard

jank wrote: »

Gay marriage or whatever you call it will be passed within a few years yet between now and then the prevalence of single parent families will no doubt increase.

So...two people wishing to get married and adopt children will lead to an increase in single parent families? I'm afraid your logic is somewhat lacking. Perhaps you'd care to explain it?

I would have thought, given the importance of marriage to religious conservatives, and the fact that marriage rates are in decline, that they would support measures to arrest that decline.

Nobody it seems gives a crap about it and as I mentioned in another post the societal affects that this causes is massive especially to the under privileged. Marriage is now longer seen as an act one takes which is for life.

Where are you getting this from? What are these massive societal effects? Are you just making stuff up off the top of your head?

I mean really, I'd like to be in a position to make an informed decision on this topic. So, if you have evidence of the massive negative impact of gay marriage that has hitherto somehow remained hidden from everyone else, I'd appreciate if if you could share it with me.

Otherwise, perhaps you should stop pulling things out of your arse?

You can be damm sure that the likes of Ivana will take credit for their victory yet abdicate all responsibility when it comes to the institute of marriage itself which is crumbling. If only she was honest about. The stats are shocking.

the institute of marriage itself which is crumbling
The stats are shocking

Your words. Not mine. On the one hand, you claim that gay marriage will destory the institute of marriage, and on the other you acknowledge that hetero marriage is destorying the institute of marriage. Going by your points, perhaps it would be best to abolish hetero marriage and reserve it simply for gays. I mean, according to yourself, it's straight people who have destoyed this fine institution.

jank

MadsL wrote: »

Your argument assumes every Father and Mother parent in the same way. See the logical fallacy?

No I don't on the other hand you are trying to assume that men/father and women/mothers don't have discernible differences in characters and attitudes.

jank

K-9 wrote: »

What is your basis for that belief?

I phrased it badly, what I meant is that within the next few years gay marriage will become law. Meanwhile in these preceding years until gay marriage becomes law we will see evidence of more marriage breakups and separations.

jank

Einhard wrote: »

So...two people wishing to get married and adopt children will lead to an increase in single parent families? I'm afraid your logic is somewhat lacking. Perhaps you'd care to explain it?

I phrased it poorly, see above. I am not correlating that enabling gay marriage will increase single parent families.

Einhard wrote: »

I would have thought, given the importance of marriage to religious conservatives, and the fact that marriage rates are in decline, that they would support measures to arrest that decline.

Well I am not a religious conservative but anyway, I agree and I would support voluntary measures to support marriage as a whole. One thing I would do is stop the government from funding a society of single parents. That is a huge enabler.

Einhard wrote: »

Where are you getting this from? What are these massive societal effects? Are you just making stuff up off the top of your head?

I mean really, I'd like to be in a position to make an informed decision on this topic. So, if you have evidence of the massive negative impact of gay marriage that has hitherto somehow remained hidden from everyone else, I'd appreciate if if you could share it with me.

Otherwise, perhaps you should stop pulling things out of your arse?

Again, that part of my post has been taking out of context mostly due to my poor phrasing of the sentence. I hope its now clear.

Einhard wrote: »

the institute of marriage itself which is crumbling
The stats are shocking

Your words. Not mine. On the one hand, you claim that gay marriage will destory the institute of marriage, and on the other you acknowledge that hetero marriage is destorying the institute of marriage. Going by your points, perhaps it would be best to abolish hetero marriage and reserve it simply for gays. I mean, according to yourself, it's straight people who have destoyed this fine institution.

Wow, down boy, seems like some are itching for a fight but alas its not me! Read my post again and my response to K9