[Constitutional Convention][5][13 April 2013] Same Sex Marriage

RangeR

Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate

I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

The Convention are meeting on April 13th and 14th 2013 to discuss the fifth issue put to us.

Provision for same sex marriage

I've read through the Irish Constitution [PDF] and it doesn't come out an say that Same Sex Marriage isn't allowed, per say. However, there are a few interlinked passages that state...

Background paragraphs

Article 41.1.1 wrote:

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Article 41.1.2 wrote:

The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

Article 41.1.3 wrote:

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The actual paragraph, in my humble opinion [and open to correction]

Article 41.3.1 wrote:

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

So

• Marriage is based on Family.
• Family contains at least one woman.
• Woman can marry man.
• Man can marry woman.
• Man cannot marry man.
• Can woman marry woman?

Although the Irish Constitution also states

Article 40.1 wrote:

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law

There is precedent in law in that not all are equal. I don't have the details but picked it up in the past few sessions.

Any legal or constitutional experts may correct me. I welcome it. This is all I can find. I'm not interested in law that is outside of the Good Book.

Request : This thread is not to discuss the Convention itself, please only discuss the pro's and con's of the thread topic.


I welcome your comments. Discuss.

oscarBravo

RangeR wrote: »

So

• ...
• Man cannot marry man.
• Can woman marry woman?

I'm not seeing how those bullet points can be derived from the articles you've quoted, except by begging the question.

SB2013

The restriction on same sex marriage is derived from court cases where the definition of a family unit and traditional marriage has been defined by bigoted judges. The constituion itself does not prevent it. I think that all that would be needed to ensure equal rights would be some kind of clarifying ammendment to the articles in question.

RangeR

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not seeing how those bullet points can be derived from the articles you've quoted, except by begging the question.

I'll re-phrase. Those bullet points are my interpretation of the Constitution relating to marriage. The only mention of a member of the family unit is the woman [in the home]. So, the family unit must have at least one woman in it. Again, my interpretation and open to correction.

oscarBravo

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from now.

Given that it has already been mooted that 41.1.3 should be amended to be more equal-opportunity, such a move would also seem to remove the only strict-constructionist bar on same-sex marriage?

P_1

The big one I guess.

I'd have to echo Oscarbravo's point above that by mooting to removing the reference to a woman's role within the family in the previous meeting, it only stands to reason that the only obstacle to SS marriage (as per the constitution) has been mooted to being removed prior to the meeting.

Out of interest I wonder if the implications of this were known or understood in the previous meeting.

RangeR

I guess it should be stated that prior meetings should not be taken into consideration. We are only making recommendations to Government. Doesn't mean that all recommendations will be put to the people NOR the people will vote the same way.

RangeR

Just to add

I'm not married
I'm heterosexual
I'm not very religious although baptised, so technically a Catholic. I didn't have much of a choice in that one.

Having said all of that, I'm of the philosophy of "live and let live". If people want to marry, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation etc, then let them. In fact it is highly discriminatory to say otherwise. However, as alluded to above, there are caveats to where discrimination is not illegal. This issue appears to be one of them.

My issue, per say but not really related to this specific issue, is that long term cohabiting couples who choose not to marry, don't get the same rights and safeguards as married couples. I cannot use my partners tax credits. However, if she applies for a means tested procedure, my income is included in that means test.

In short, I'm in favor of ANY person marrying ANY other person. I just don't see the problem with it. The world won't end. There won't be mass extinction. The planets will still align.

P_1

RangeR wrote: »

I guess it should be stated that prior meetings should not be taken into consideration. We are only making recommendations to Government. Doesn't mean that all recommendations will be put to the people NOR the people will vote the same way.

Ah yeah I understand that, it just might be a tad messy to take the results of each meeting in isolation when the whole process is put forward to the government

oscarBravo

RangeR wrote: »

My issue, per say but not really related to this specific issue, is that long term cohabiting couples who choose not to marry, don't get the same rights and safeguards as married couples. I cannot use my partners tax credits. However, if she applies for a means tested procedure, my income is included in that means test.

Yeah, that bakes my noodle.

sparkling sea

RangeR wrote: »

My issue, per say but not really related to this specific issue, is that long term cohabiting couples who choose not to marry, don't get the same rights and safeguards as married couples. I cannot use my partners tax credits. However, if she applies for a means tested procedure, my income is included in that means test.

The issue you raise has been put forward as a social policy anomaly by many NGO on many occassions; its wasn't addressed by FF and its not being addressed now.

matrim

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there 2 points that ruled against same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court.
One was as mentioned, the role of women in the home, but didn't the supreme court also take into account the common thinking (intent) at the time of writing the constitution, i.e. that the intent would have been for a man and a woman not same-sex and that caused part of the ruling against ssm

P_1

matrim wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there 2 points that ruled against same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court.
One was as mentioned, the role of women in the home, but didn't the supreme court also take into account the common thinking (intent) at the time of writing the constitution, i.e. that the intent would have been for a man and a woman not same-sex and that caused part of the ruling against ssm

The problem is that the 2nd point wasn't mentioned in the constitution though. Not much that can be done about something that isn't mentioned there

RangeR

matrim wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there 2 points that ruled against same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court.
One was as mentioned, the role of women in the home, but didn't the supreme court also take into account the common thinking (intent) at the time of writing the constitution, i.e. that the intent would have been for a man and a woman not same-sex and that caused part of the ruling against ssm

Anyone know what case that was or a link to the text?
Judge?
Date?
Parties?

efb

I'm very much in favour of it.

matrim

RangeR wrote: »

Anyone know what case that was or a link to the text?
Judge?
Date?
Parties?

According to Wikipedia it was the KAL (2004 Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan) case. This is the text it has on the judgement

The case was heard in October 2006[51] and in the judgment[52] was delivered on 14 December 2006[53] Ms. Justice Dunne found that although a 'living document', the Irish constitution had always meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman, that the definitions used in the Civil Registration Act of 2004 was an expression of the current attitudes of the state and that she could find no reason to change that. Further, she found that the constitution did not violate the plaintiffs' rights under European law. The judgment did say, however, that the topic is very much in the news and that there were undoubtedly difficulties and hardships for same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples and that

"It is to be hoped that the legislative changes to ameliorate these difficulties will not be long in coming. Ultimately, it is for the legislature to determine the extent to which such changes should be made."

Of note, the Dunne judgment did not explicitly opine that same-sex marriage if agreed by the Oireachtas, would be unconstitutional. On 23 February 2007 the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.[54] The case is expected to be heard in June 2012.[55]

There is a link to the full judgement in the wiki footnotes.

P_1

Probably miles outside the remit of the convention but aren't decisions made by the Supreme Court meant to be based on the judges interpretation of the Constitution.

Ergo, by changing what is written in the Constitution the logical follow up is that the judges interpretation of it would likely change?

sparkling sea

RangeR wrote: »

Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate

I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

The Convention are meeting on April 13th and 14th 2013 to discuss the fifth issue put to us.

Provision for same sex marriage

I've read through the Irish Constitution [PDF] and it doesn't come out an say that Same Sex Marriage isn't allowed, per say. However, there are a few interlinked passages that state...

Background paragraphs







The actual paragraph, in my humble opinion [and open to correction]


So

• Marriage is based on Family.
• Family contains at least one woman.
• Woman can marry man.
• Man can marry woman.
• Man cannot marry man.
• Can woman marry woman?

Although the Irish Constitution also states

There is precedent in law in that not all are equal. I don't have the details but picked it up in the past few sessions.

Any legal or constitutional experts may correct me. I welcome it. This is all I can find. I'm not interested in law that is outside of the Good Book.

Request : This thread is not to discuss the Convention itself, please only discuss the pro's and con's of the thread topic.


I welcome your comments. Discuss.

The beginning of the Preamble noted that the Constitution was enacted by the people of Ireland "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity". Article 41 contains some guarntees to support 'the family' as defined under the Constitution. An Irish family is therefore made through the marriage of a man and woman and'their offspring whether biological or not.

I know you have already discussed Art.41 and so the support for the family in society would have been seen by some as a strange when the Constitution also stated; 41.2.2 The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

The definition of the family is subject to certain limitations, the rights of the family are qualified - to me it would make sense to broaden the definition of the family to reflect the make up of families in Ireland in 2013.

I suppose what I am trying to say is, if same sex marriage is allowed then under the Constitution our society not only recognises but supports a same sex family - to me that can only be good.

sparkling sea

One other thing you might consider, the first draft of Article 45.4.2 of the Constitution included the words 'inadequate strength of women.' Women's organisations and many individual women considered the phrase very offensive. They met Mr de Valera and the wording was changed to read as it does

45.4.2 The State shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men, women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength.

However the implication has always been that " the man is the head of the house" he has the final word, he knows best, he is the superior gender.
Same sex marriage may allow for a more equal and respectful society, in ways that haven't even been envisaged yet.

Annasopra

P_1 wrote: »

Probably miles outside the remit of the convention but aren't decisions made by the Supreme Court meant to be based on the judges interpretation of the Constitution.

Ergo, by changing what is written in the Constitution the logical follow up is that the judges interpretation of it would likely change?

Yes

Annasopra

RangeR wrote: »

Anyone know what case that was or a link to the text?
Judge?
Date?
Parties?

Justice Dunne
Gilligan and Zappone

http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/pdf/2006_high_court_judgment.pdf

Fromthetrees

I support same sex marriage/civil partnership but when it comes to children I have grave misgivings. I don't think it's fair to create a law (a legal evil) that states a child will never have a mother. I think, where possible, every child has an inalienable right to a mother, and also a father.

If it's a choice between a child being raised in an orphanage or to be adopted by a loving same sex couple then of course the child should go to the loving family, but if it comes down to a choice between having a mother and a father or two fathers then there is no argument to be had from my point of view.

The child's right to a mother trumps the rights of a same sex couple that want to adopt every single time in my opinion.

I do not consider myself religious.

sparkling sea

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The child's right to a mother trumps the rights of a same sex couple that want to adopt every single time in my opinion.

I do not consider myself religious.

Is that a child's right to any type of mother or a child's right to a loving mother?

There are many same sex couples in Ireland fostering children and these children are thriving now as oppossed to when they lived with their mother/ father/ parents.

RangeR

I would tend to agree with sparkling_sea. There is no causation of a child having a great [or even good] life JUST because that child had a mother. There are plenty of disturbed children out there, from hetrosexual couples. Ignore the statistics [to an extent], they only show trends and can be highly biased. It's down to the actual couple, as to how good they are. This is really something you can't legislate for, in so far as who can and cannot be legal guardians for children. Legislate for child protections, sure.

Fromthetrees

sparkling sea wrote: »

Is that a child's right to any type of mother or a child's right to a loving mother?

There are many same sex couples in Ireland fostering children and these children are thriving now as oppossed to when they lived with their mother/ father/ parents.

I'm sure there are many same sex couples all over the Western world that do a tremendous job in raising kids as their own.

I just don't agree that two Johns should be given a child ahead of a John and Mary if both couples meet the same criteria, requirements and tick all the same boxes on the application form other then putting an extra tick on the gender part of the form.

To put into law that every child doesn't have an inalienable right to a mother, and also a father feels morally wrong to me. Obviously having a mother and father isn't going to be possible or practicable in every case for every child but I think it should be held up and considered the ideal.

SB2013

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I support same sex marriage/civil partnership but when it comes to children I have grave misgivings. I don't think it's fair to create a law (a legal evil) that states a child will never have a mother. I think, where possible, every child has an inalienable right to a mother, and also a father.

If it's a choice between a child being raised in an orphanage or to be adopted by a loving same sex couple then of course the child should go to the loving family, but if it comes down to a choice between having a mother and a father or two fathers then there is no argument to be had from my point of view.

The child's right to a mother trumps the rights of a same sex couple that want to adopt every single time in my opinion.

I do not consider myself religious.

I disagree. A child has a right to a stable loving, home where they will be looked after should trump all other rights, including the right to a mother because there are plenty of mothers out there that are not deserving of the title.

Fromthetrees

SB2013 wrote: »

I disagree. A child has a right to a stable loving, home where they will be looked after should trump all other rights, including the right to a mother because there are plenty of mothers out there that are not deserving of the title.

Our opinions diverge here where I think 'A child has a right to a stable loving, home where they will be looked after,' by a mother and a father.

Ideally, a child should have a mother and a father.

Elton John, strange person to quote I guess, thinks; It will break my son's heart to realise he hasn't got a mother...

sparkling sea

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Our opinions diverge here where I think 'A child has a right to a stable loving, home where they will be looked after,' by a mother and a father.

Ideally, a child should have a mother and a father.

Elton John, strange person to quote I guess, thinks; It will break my son's heart to realise he hasn't got a mother...

The child does have a mother but she didn't want to take on the role of a mother.

Fromthetrees

sparkling sea wrote: »

The child does have a mother but she didn't want to take on the role of a mother.

Many mothers who give up their child for adoption may just feel they are unable to be mothers to their children, I think in most cases of adoption it isn't a want or a choice.

This thread is about same sex marriage, the implications of same sex marriage means that all marriages between couples will be put on the same legal footing with regard adoption rights. I don't think they should be.

I think, a child who has already had a pretty crap beginning in life where they have been rejected by their natural birth parents is entitled to a caring home that consists of a loving mother and father.

oscarBravo

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I think, a child who has already had a pretty crap beginning in life where they have been rejected by their natural birth parents is entitled to a caring home that consists of a loving mother and father.

The problem with your approach is that it's discriminatory. If you're going to say that a child has a legal entitlement to be raised by a father and a mother, then that's an argument for outlawing separation and divorce - otherwise you're claiming that only adopted children have such an entitlement.

RangeR

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Many mothers who give up their child for adoption may just feel they are unable to be mothers to their children, I think in most cases of adoption it isn't a want or a choice.

This thread is about same sex marriage, the implications of same sex marriage means that all marriages between couples will be put on the same legal footing with regard adoption rights. I don't think they should be.

I think, a child who has already had a pretty crap beginning in life where they have been rejected by their natural birth parents is entitled to a caring home that consists of a loving mother and father.

I'd like to flesh this out a bit, if you don't mind. I can understand, to some degree, peoples concerns to same sex adoption but I just can't rationalise their [and your] concerns in my mind. Something just does not compute with that thinking.

You are saying that you would prefer that a child is brought up in a loving home, by a [or their?] mother and father [woman and man, if adopted]. What safe guards do you foresee there being to make sure that this woman and man are any better than a same sex couple? Do you envisage more love coming from a heterosexual couple over a homosexual couple?

Do you foresee less of a chance for a happy upbringing, purely because of the fact it's a mixed sex "parents". Do you not see that same sex couple have exactly the same potential for love towards a child?

Now, I'm not the most diplomatic person in the world and I just want you to know that I'm not trying to be aggressive here. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of why people surmise that a same sex couple shouldn't get the same treatment as a mixed couple.

Of is it just a feeling you have?

Fromthetrees

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem with your approach is that it's discriminatory. If you're going to say that a child has a legal entitlement to be raised by a father and a mother, then that's an argument for outlawing separation and divorce - otherwise you're claiming that only adopted children have such an entitlement.

Parents of children who have separated or divorced are still the parents of their child though. Do you think I'm making the point that we should legally enforce parents to stay together and that any type of family outside of a heterosexual nuclear family should be banned?

Families come in a whole range of different forms, that's the way it is.

This is about denying the right of a same sex couple to adopt a child versus the child's right to be raised by a mother and father.

I think the child's right to a mother and father is the most important factor here.

Fromthetrees

RangeR wrote: »

I'd like to flesh this out a bit, if you don't mind. I can understand, to some degree, peoples concerns to same sex adoption but I just can't rationalise their [and your] concerns in my mind. Something just does not compute with that thinking.

You are saying that you would prefer that a child is brought up in a loving home, by a [or their?] mother and father [woman and man, if adopted]. What safe guards do you foresee there being to make sure that this woman and man are any better than a same sex couple? Do you envisage more love coming from a heterosexual couple over a homosexual couple?

Do you foresee less of a chance for a happy upbringing, purely because of the fact it's a mixed sex "parents". Do you not see that same sex couple have exactly the same potential for love towards a child?

Now, I'm not the most diplomatic person in the world and I just want you to know that I'm not trying to be aggressive here. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of why people surmise that a same sex couple shouldn't get the same treatment as a mixed couple.

Of is it just a feeling you have?

The dynamic that a mother and a father bring to the table in the raising of a child can't be replicated by a same sex couple.

The importance of a mother to a son, of a father to a daughter, plays such an intrinsic role in the healthy development of a child from birth into adulthood.

If it's a straight up choice between a same sex couple and a heterosexual couple I think the heterosexual couple should always be given priority. There is volumes of evidence that show when a child doesn't have a mother or a father that they fare far worse in almost all measurements.

However, if there is X number of children looking to be adopted in Ireland today and we can't find homes for them, and if by allowing same sex couples to adopt we could reduce this number by a percentage then I would be very open to the idea.


Is there evidence there is a shortage of adoptive parents in Ireland today?

RangeR

I'm busy in work, so excuse my abruptness

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The dynamic that a mother and a father bring to the table in the raising of a child can't be replicated by a same sex couple.

Please provide proof.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

The importance of a mother to a son, of a father to a daughter, plays such an intrinsic role in the healthy development of a child from birth into adulthood.

Says who?

Fromthetrees wrote: »

If it's a straight up choice between a same sex couple and a heterosexual couple I think the heterosexual couple should always be given priority.

That's blatant discrimination

Fromthetrees wrote: »

There is volumes of evidence that show when a child doesn't have a mother or a father that they fare far worse in almost all measurements.

Show me five sources, if there are volumes. Actually, just show me one non biased, fair piece of evidence.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

However, if there is X number of children looking to be adopted in Ireland today and we can't find homes for them, and if by allowing same sex couples to adopt we could reduce this number by a percentage then I would be very open to the idea.

Again, discrimination is discrimination regardless of how it's qualified.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Is there evidence there is a shortage of adoptive parents in Ireland today?

I don't know but how is that relevant?

Fromthetrees

RangeR wrote: »

I'm busy in work, so excuse my abruptness


Please provide proof.


Says who?


That's blatant discrimination


Show me five sources, if there are volumes. Actually, just show me one non biased, fair piece of evidence.


Again, discrimination is discrimination regardless of how it's qualified.


I don't know but how is that relevant?

Redefining marriage to the union of any two persons abandons three principles we now take for granted:

1. Children are entitled to a relationship with both parents.
2. Legal parenthood ordinarily tracks biological parentage.
3. The state recognizes parentage, but does not assign it.

Over the past few years I've been mainly reading about the importance of a fathers role in the raising of their kids.

The Science of Fatherhood: Why Dads Matter
Daughters and Dad's Approval
Dads model masculine traits for daughters and sons
The Importance of Fathers
Angry Boys: Sometimes, Mom Is Not Enough


5 reasons the mother-son relationship is so important


Link

AUSTIN, Texas — Adult children of parents who were in same-sex relationships differ notably on a variety of social, emotional and relationship factors from adult children raised by biological parents who are married and heterosexual, according to research led by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin.

The findings, to be published in the July issue of Social Science Research, are particularly significant because they are based on the first large-scale, population-based survey of young adults that features a large number of cases in which survey respondents’ parents had been in same-sex relationships.

“Most conclusions about same-sex parenting have been drawn from small, convenience samples, not larger, random ones,” Regnerus said. “The results of that approach have often led family scholars to conclude that there are no differences between children raised in same-sex households and those raised in other types of families. But those earlier studies have inadvertently masked real diversity among gay and lesbian parenting experiences in America.”

RangeR

Fair play for backing up your claims. I was beginning to get the impression that these were *just* emotional feelings with no basis in reality. Right, I've read the entire text of the "Texas Study" link. I wouldn't class this as a scientific study by any stretch of the imagination.

Some selective quotes

The findings, to be published in the July issue of Social Science Research, are particularly significant because they are based on the first large-scale, population-based survey of young adults that features a large number of cases in which survey respondents’ parents had been in same-sex relationships

3,000 Americans partook in the survey. Hardly "large-scale population based". This was also a web based survey. I may be overly cynical but I just don't trust the outcome of web based surveys.

The study did not isolate the effect of having a parent who had a same-sex relationship from other effects such as marital disruptions that preceded or coincided with a parent’s same-sex relationship. Most of the young adults in the survey with gay or lesbian parents experienced divorce or other household disruption as children, and their outcomes were thus more similar to those of children from heterosexual stepfamilies and single-parent households.

when compared with those who spent their entire childhood with both of their married, biological parents

This is comparing apples and oranges. Am I right in saying, generally in the survey, were the hetero children from "happy" families and the homo children from "broken" families? I think I'm correct in saying that. That skews the entire study to be less than scientific.

“Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus’ descriptive analysis,” said Cynthia Osborne, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin. “Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures, and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage or living with a single parent.

This person says it all. Regnerus does not prove causation. There is no proof here that same sex couple cause unhappy children.

RangeR

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Redefining marriage to the union of any two persons abandons three principles we now take for granted:

1. Children are entitled to a relationship with both parents.
2. Legal parenthood ordinarily tracks biological parentage.
3. The state recognizes parentage, but does not assign it.

Over the past few years I've been mainly reading about the importance of a fathers role in the raising of their kids.

The Science of Fatherhood: Why Dads Matter
Daughters and Dad's Approval
Dads model masculine traits for daughters and sons
The Importance of Fathers
Angry Boys: Sometimes, Mom Is Not Enough

And that's why we're here. We are talking about redefining marriage. Your three points are fair and I don't think I'd want to go against them. However, they are based on the premise that we are living in a perfect world. It's not always possible for children to remain with their biological parents due to many, many, many reasons.

It's for any of these reasons, that children may be put up for adoption so biological parentage doesn't even come into the equation. It boils down to "Who do we allow to adopt?". And answering that question should be done in a fair and non discriminatory fashion.

I have to admit, I don't have too much time on my hands at the moment, but I will attempt to read over your links on "fathering". If they only relate to biological fathering, then I don't really have much of an interest [read free time] as I agree with you.

Fromthetrees

RangeR wrote: »

Fair play for backing up your claims. I was beginning to get the impression that these were *just* emotional feelings with no basis in reality. Right, I've read the entire text of the "Texas Study" link. I wouldn't class this as a scientific study by any stretch of the imagination.

Some selective quotes



3,000 Americans partook in the survey. Hardly "large-scale population based". This was also a web based survey. I may be overly cynical but I just don't trust the outcome of web based surveys.



This is comparing apples and oranges. Am I right in saying, generally in the survey, were the hetero children from "happy" families and the homo children from "broken" families? I think I'm correct in saying that. That skews the entire study to be less than scientific.


This person says it all. Regnerus does not prove causation. There is no proof here that same sex couple cause unhappy children.

Well it's large scale compared to all the other 'studies' that have been done on this subject so if you're discounting this because it isn't big enough than there is essentially no studies you would consider valid. Is that correct?

If you do consider there to be no study on this subject to be valid than we are left with the other findings that I posted. The essential role a father plays in the rearing of a healthy daughter to womanhood, and what makes a mother and son relationship so important.

We will be depriving children of a male or a female parent which I think could be to societies detriment.

The whole concept of bringing in same sex marriage and effectively redefining how we parent in our society is changing the way we have parented since the dawn of man/women. Surely, in all fairness, the onus should be put upon you to prove and give reasons to why we should change this, we're talking about rewriting how parenting is done.

I don't think to decry discrimination against same sex couples is good enough, I think that depriving a child of a mother or a father is far more unfair and a much greater injustice.

SB2013

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Well it's large scale compared to all the other 'studies' that have been done on this subject so if you're discounting this because it isn't big enough than there is essentially no studies you would consider valid. Is that correct?

If you do consider there to be no study on this subject to be valid than we are left with the other findings that I posted. The essential role a father plays in the rearing of a healthy daughter to womanhood, and what makes a mother and son relationship so important.

We will be depriving children of a male or a female parent which I think could be to societies detriment.

The whole concept of bringing in same sex marriage and effectively redefining how we parent in our society is changing the way we have parented since the dawn of man/women. Surely, in all fairness, the onus should be put upon you to prove and give reasons to why we should change this, we're talking about rewriting how parenting is done.

I don't think to decry discrimination against same sex couples is good enough, I think that depriving a child of a mother or a father is far more unfair and a much greater injustice.

And i think that depriving a child of a good parent in favour of one who has the correct anatomy is pretty wrong.

Fromthetrees

RangeR wrote: »

And that's why we're here. We are talking about redefining marriage. Your three points are fair and I don't think I'd want to go against them. However, they are based on the premise that we are living in a perfect world. It's not always possible for children to remain with their biological parents due to many, many, many reasons.

It's for any of these reasons, that children may be put up for adoption so biological parentage doesn't even come into the equation. It boils down to "Who do we allow to adopt?". And answering that question should be done in a fair and non discriminatory fashion.

I have to admit, I don't have too much time on my hands at the moment, but I will attempt to read over your links on "fathering". If they only relate to biological fathering, then I don't really have much of an interest [read free time] as I agree with you.

Isn't the discussion about moving the law from where it is currently, only married heterosexual couples can adopt, to where heterosexual and homosexual married couples can adopt.

My main point is a child will be better equipped to deal with life if they come from a family that consists of a mother and a father.

RangeR

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Well it's large scale compared to all the other 'studies' that have been done on this subject so if you're discounting this because it isn't big enough than there is essentially no studies you would consider valid. Is that correct?

No, not correct. I'd expect a "scientist" not to embelish but stick to the facts. There have been larger studies [>3000] done in Ireland, albeit on varying topics. 3000 is not a large demographic in America.

The whole concept of bringing in same sex marriage and effectively redefining how we parent in our society is changing the way we have parented since the dawn of man/women. Surely, in all fairness, the onus should be put upon you to prove and give reasons to why we should change this, we're talking about rewriting how parenting is done.

I gave nothing to prove. In fact, I have my views, which I opined just after opening the thread. I'm going into the Convention in April with my views of allowing same sex marriage unless someone can convince me the errors of my ways. So far, that hasn't happened.

I simply disagree with your premise that a child can only have a happy upbringing if they are done so by a hetero coupling. I put it to you, that most of the people I know [friends that I grew up with etc] came from a hetero family. not one of them had "great" upbringing. Whether that be down to uncaring parents, philandering, neglect, insest, lack of money, lack of education. The list goes on and on and on.

I don't think to decry discrimination against same sex couples is good enough, I think that depriving a child of a mother or a father is far more unfair and a much greater injustice.

You say deprive. I say that if a child needs a family to provide that loving care, why not a same sex couple without qualification. In fact, I think you almost agree. However, you would prefer that hetero couples get first dibs. Then if there are none, take homo couples into consideration.

If you think this way, why consider homosexual couple at all for adoption?

I say, through them all into the one pot.

RangeR

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Isn't the discussion about moving the law from where it is currently, only married heterosexual couples can adopt, to where heterosexual and homosexual married couples can adopt.

No, it's about enshrining the right of same sex marriage in our Constitution. Although, as you bring up, that has wide ranging aspects.

oscarBravo

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Parents of children who have separated or divorced are still the parents of their child though. Do you think I'm making the point that we should legally enforce parents to stay together and that any type of family outside of a heterosexual nuclear family should be banned?

Families come in a whole range of different forms, that's the way it is.

This is about denying the right of a same sex couple to adopt a child versus the child's right to be raised by a mother and father.

I think the child's right to a mother and father is the most important factor here.

Your argument is internally inconsistent. You explicitly use the phrase "the child's right to be raised by a mother and father". If the parents separate and one of the parents is no longer a part of the child's life, then the child is not being raised by a mother and a father, and is being denied the right that you insist it should have. In the event of divorce and re-marriage, the same child may be raised in a loving family, but one member of the married couple is not the child's parent, and as such the child is still being denied what you consider a fundamental right.

The child's alleged right to be raised by a mother and father is a convenient fiction that, with respect, you've constructed to further your belief that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. A child deserves to be raised in a loving family, whether that family consists of birth parents, a single parent, a single parent with a partner who isn't the child's other parent, adoptive parents, whatever.

The argument that two men shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child because the child deserves a mother is an equally valid argument for forcing a widowed man to re-marry. The latter is self-evidently absurd, so what makes the former valid?

efb

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Isn't the discussion about moving the law from where it is currently, only married heterosexual couples can adopt, to where heterosexual and homosexual married couples can adopt.

My main point is a child will be better equipped to deal with life if they come from a family that consists of a mother and a father.

On what grounds is this claim based?

Fromthetrees

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your argument is internally inconsistent. You explicitly use the phrase "the child's right to be raised by a mother and father". If the parents separate and one of the parents is no longer a part of the child's life, then the child is not being raised by a mother and a father, and is being denied the right that you insist it should have. In the event of divorce and re-marriage, the same child may be raised in a loving family, but one member of the married couple is not the child's parent, and as such the child is still being denied what you consider a fundamental right.

A child is put up for adoption, the state takes the child into it's care, it looks for the best home to place it (the discussion is about whether it should be with a heterosexual couple only or with both heterosexuals and homosexual couples)

I can't follow why you're going on about divorce/separation/re-marriage/one parent being no longer part of the child's life/child being adopted by the new partner of the parent that didn't leave...???...but all of it involves the birth parent(s) of said child not putting the child up for adoption. I don't recall me asking can we bring in laws that forces the biological parents of children to behave in certain ways.

I'm saying ideally a child should be raised by a mother and father, where this isn't possible, it's okay.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The child's alleged right to be raised by a mother and father is a convenient fiction that, with respect, you've constructed to further your belief that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. A child deserves to be raised in a loving family, whether that family consists of birth parents, a single parent, a single parent with a partner who isn't the child's other parent, adoptive parents, whatever.

I'm trying to be as concise as possible, the right of a child that's been put up for adoption to have the love of a mother and a father superseeds the rights of a same sex couple to adopt, that's my view.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The argument that two men shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child because the child deserves a mother is an equally valid argument for forcing a widowed man to re-marry. The latter is self-evidently absurd, so what makes the former valid?

I don't think we should be forcing anybody to do anything.
Ideally a child should have a mother and a father, the world isn't ideal so it's not always the case, but putting legislation in place that ensures some children will never experience the love of a mother or a father feels morally bankrupt to me.

Fromthetrees

efb wrote: »

On what grounds is this claim based?

On the basis that a man and a women have been the primary caregivers to offspring for millenia, could you tell me why it isn't true?

Annasopra

Fromthetrees wrote: »

On the basis that a man and a women have been the primary caregivers to offspring for millenia, could you tell me why it isn't true?

Actually there have been many many different family formations over the centuries so yes it isn't quite true.

Large extended families
Authoritarian strict families where men ruled the household
Communal type households
The strict nuclear family with strictly defined male and female roles
Single parent households
Modern households that are more egalitarian in terms of gender roles
Blended families
Part of a wider network integrated into a close knit community

Fromthetrees

mango salsa wrote: »

Actually there have been many many different family formations over the centuries so yes it isn't quite true.

Large extended families
Authoritarian strict families where men ruled the household
Communal type households
The strict nuclear family with strictly defined male and female roles
Single parent households
Modern households that are more egalitarian in terms of gender roles
Blended families
Part of a wider network integrated into a close knit community

Of course family structure can take various different shapes and forms, it can also raise perfectly well adjusted children.

I specifically said that a woman and a man have been/are the primary caregivers in raising offspring. The majority of children are raised by a mom and a dad in nuclear families, I would have thought support from family, friends and the community has always been an integral part of rearing a child, it takes a 'village' to raise a child and all.

We aren't going to be putting children up for adoption in communal type settlements now are we, the optimum choice is (hopefully) obviously to place adopted children in the care of a loving, financially secure married couple.

efb

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Of course family structure can take various different shapes and forms, it can also raise perfectly well adjusted children.

I specifically said that a woman and a man have/are the primary caregivers in raising offspring. The majority of children are raised by a mom and a dad in nuclear families, I would have thought support from family, friends and the community has always been an integral part of rearing a child, it takes a 'village' to raise a child and all.

We aren't going to be putting children up for adoption in communal type settlements now are we, the optimum choice is (hopefully) obviously to place adopted children in the care of a loving, financially secure married couple.

Yes. Irrespective of their gender.

Annasopra

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Of course family structure can take various different shapes and forms, it can also raise perfectly well adjusted children.

I specifically said that a woman and a man have/are the primary caregivers in raising offspring. The majority of children are raised by a mom and a dad in nuclear families, I would have thought support from family, friends and the community has always been an integral part of rearing a child, it takes a 'village' to raise a child and all.

We aren't going to be putting children up for adoption in communal type settlements now are we, the optimum choice is (hopefully) obviously to place adopted children in the care of a loving, financially secure married couple.

But your point that children have always been reared by one man and one woman isn't true.

Fromthetrees

efb wrote: »

Yes. Irrespective of their gender.

I don't think so.

mango salsa wrote: »

But your point that children have always been reared by one man and one woman isn't true.

In all fairness, my post said, "a man and a woman have been the primary caregivers to offspring".

Are you saying the majority of children reared in Ireland and elsewhere over the last few thousand years didn't have two primary caregivers consisting of a woman and a man?