How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

iDave

While walking down the street yesterday I saw 2 men embracing and kissing. And being a gob****e I looked, even made eye contact with of them. Then I though feck I'm part of the problem, couldn't of just left them to it without looking. But its just rare to see so you cant help it. Don't actually know what point I'm making to be honest. Think this is just something that needs to be normalised so these people don't attract intrusive stares. It'll start with voting yes.
On a separate note I enjoyed that viral pic of the 2 young ones kissing in front of the old bigot but probably not for any grand equality reasons
Again not sure what point I'm trying to make.....carry on.

ohnonotgmail

noway12345 wrote: »

So really no study can prove anything?

that is not what was said. what was said is that no ONE study can prove anything. and in the case of the "study" you linked to (and i use the word study in its least rigorous definition) it can never prove anything because it is just bad science. No conclusions can be drawn from a study so badly done.

so do you have any credible studies that prove your point?

VinLieger

noway12345 wrote: »

So really no study can prove anything?

Ahh classic straw man, that's really not what was said and you well know it but continue with your refusal to accept you have no verifiable facts other than that one study which has been widely discredited.

Ave Sodalis

noway12345 wrote: »

So really no study can prove anything?

It can prove stuff, but that proof holds no real solid findings unless it's huge. There's a reason the same study is done over and over, to rule out discrepancies.

ohnonotgmail

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The problem with anecdotal evidence such as theirs is I could easily see someone raised by same sex parents whose life appears better than mine and say I'd have been better off raised by a gay couple. You can't apply the experiences of four people to all of society.

or to put it another way "the plural of anecdote is not data"

noway12345

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And I have worked with kids being raised by married couples who were robbing, thieving toe rags but strangely I don't think that was because they were raised by a married couple.

You seriously cannot take your personal experiences and then decide that describes everyone and act like if these kids just had a heterosexual married couple as mammy and daddy everything in their lives would be perfect because there is no such thing as a married couple who are also crap parents.

Optimal is when a child is loved, supported, encouraged, taught right from wrong, nurtured, disciplined when required, clean, warm, fed, played with, listened to... parented. Ability to reproduced is not the same as ability to parent but that is what you have reduced it to and that is scary tbh.

Scary that you think the criteria for optimal care of a child is fertility.

There are crap parents who are married, there are crap single parents and so on. There have been studies done which show that kids with just a single parent have worse behavioral records so it's not just personal experience.

As I say, a kid brought up in a horrible household by a mother and a father is definitely not an optimal scenario. That's just the same as a kid brought up in a a horrible household with two homosexual parents though. All things being equal, kids brought up with a mother and a father fair better.

noway12345

Nodin wrote: »

Ty.

Here's the summary of another one, you can download it from here if you want. Not sure if this study will go down any better than the last one.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537

humanji

MOD: Folks, this is not about children. And it certainly isn't about whether single parents raise worse children than a couple. It's about the referendum, so please go back to the actual topic.

ohnonotgmail

noway12345 wrote: »

There are crap parents who are married, there are crap single parents and so on. There have been studies done which show that kids with just a single parent have worse behavioral records so it's not just personal experience.

As I say, a kid brought up in a horrible household by a mother and a father is definitely not an optimal scenario. That's just the same as a kid brought up in a a horrible household with two homosexual parents though. All things being equal, kids brought up with a mother and a father fair better.

Nothing you have linked to shows that. at least not in any recognised scientific way. you are presenting your own opinion as fact.

One eyed Jack

noway12345 wrote: »

People like this aren't testifying to a **** upbringing, they're saying it would have been more benificial to have a mother and a father.

How can they possibly make that determination? What they're actually saying is that they wish their parents had done a better job of raising them.

Maximus Alexander

noway12345 wrote: »

So really no study can prove anything?

Studies don't generally aim to 'prove' anything. They aim to collect and analyse data in order to draw inferences about something.

The results of a single study might affected by errors in methodology, sample size, or may just be incapable of establishing a causal relationship - instead showing a correlation.

A number of studies in the same area, with differing methodologies, carried out by different people, will provide a much clearer picture.

noway12345

MrWalsh wrote: »

Jesus. Don't they have vetting procedures anymore for people who work with children?

What was the point of this comment?

If I was to say something like that to a homosexual person posting here what would your reaction be?

Kurtosis

On my commute this morning, I noticed a poster which had been put up earlier in the week had been removed, very disappointing.

VinLieger

penguin88 wrote: »

On my commute this morning, I noticed a poster which had been put up earlier in the week had been removed, very disappointing.

Yeah its happening everywhere, while i disapprove i understand where the people doing it are coming from, im angry as well by the blatant lies being spouted on these poster's but still they should be left up.

TBH id prefer if posters weren't allowed at all but thats for another debate

aloyisious

A personal opinion piece in the irish times. The exchange between an FF Yes-vote canvasser and a resident mentioned show's the need for working the doorsteps. http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/noel-whelan-what-s-the-difference-between-civil-partnership-and-marriage-1.2195514

noway12345

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, not only have you completely misrepresented the consensus position on the academic research in this area but now to support your spurious argument you have presented a study which is about as bad an example of bad science and borderline fraudulent as it is possible to get.

Quote is too long

I think this was the quote linked to me a few pages back?

The truth of this all is that we don't actually have enough data to tell for sure one way or the other. You can quote studies that support your view point and I could quote studies that support mine. The fact is that there's a limited number of people that can partake in any study on this issue. We will probably know for certain 30-50 years down the line.

The problem with that is we could be depriving kids of an upbringing which will best suit their needs to grow into happy, successful adults in the mean time. Although we can't take any definitive answers from the studies, it seems clear that kids with two gay female parents fair better than with two gay male parents. This can't be ignored either.

Bannasidhe

noway12345 wrote: »

There are crap parents who are married, there are crap single parents and so on. There have been studies done which show that kids with just a single parent have worse behavioral records so it's not just personal experience.

As I say, a kid brought up in a horrible household by a mother and a father is definitely not an optimal scenario. That's just the same as a kid brought up in a a horrible household with two homosexual parents though. All things being equal, kids brought up with a mother and a father fair better.

Would you please listen to yourself?

You are reducing parenting down to who has a functioning reproductive system and dividing by genitalia and maintaining that the ideal is fertile +penis + vagina every time.

Procreating is not the same as Parenting.

MOD - sorry. I just saw your post as I clicked reply as soon as I read noway's comment. Will make this my last comment on this tangent.

Seriously, if you can't see that I give up discussing this with you because such blind adherence to willyvajayjay good - willywilly or vajayjayvajayjay bad is frankly upsetting given the number of children who have been seriously damaged mentally and physically while growing up in yoru idea of 'optimal'

noway12345

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is not what was said. what was said is that no ONE study can prove anything. and in the case of the "study" you linked to (and i use the word study in its least rigorous definition) it can never prove anything because it is just bad science. No conclusions can be drawn from a study so badly done.

so do you have any credible studies that prove your point?

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahh classic straw man, that's really not what was said and you well know it but continue with your refusal to accept you have no verifiable facts other than that one study which has been widely discredited.

sup_dude wrote: »

It can prove stuff, but that proof holds no real solid findings unless it's huge. There's a reason the same study is done over and over, to rule out discrepancies.

Yes and we don't have enough data to fully prove this one way or the other. It needs to be huge.

tigger123

noway12345 wrote: »

I think this was the quote linked to me a few pages back?

The truth of this all is that we don't actually have enough data to tell for sure one way or the other. You can quote studies that support your view point and I could quote studies that support mine. The fact is that there's a limited number of people that can partake in any study on this issue. We will probably know for certain 30-50 years down the line.

The problem with that is we could be depriving kids of an upbringing which will best suit their needs to grow into happy, successful adults in the mean time. Although we can't take any definitive answers from the studies, it seems clear that kids with two gay female parents fair better than with two gay male parents. This can't be ignored either.

None of which is part of the referendum which is being voted upon.

noway12345

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The problem with anecdotal evidence such as theirs is I could easily see someone raised by same sex parents whose life appears better than mine and say I'd have been better off raised by a gay couple. You can't apply the experiences of four people to all of society.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

or to put it another way "the plural of anecdote is not data"

Yes but we don't have much else to go on.

oldrnwisr

noway12345 wrote: »

I think this was the quote linked to me a few pages back?

The truth of this all is that we don't actually have enough data to tell for sure one way or the other. You can quote studies that support your view point and I could quote studies that support mine. The fact is that there's a limited number of people that can partake in any study on this issue. We will probably know for certain 30-50 years down the line.

The problem with that is we could be depriving kids of an upbringing which will best suit their needs to grow into happy, successful adults in the mean time. Although we can't take any definitive answers from the studies, it seems clear that kids with two gay female parents fair better than with two gay male parents. This can't be ignored either.

humanji has already issued an instruction on this issue and I don't wish to derail this thread any further so I'll make this brief.

Yes, we do have enough data on this issue to tell one way or another. That is what consensus is about. At one point about 15 years ago, it would have been true that there wasn't solid support for a consensus on the subject because we didn't have a lot of large scale studies. But we do now. There are now several large scale nationally representative studies which still show no difference. Moreover, there there are meta-analyses which take the smaller studies and reanalyse the data as one single large dataset. These also show no difference.
We have been studying this issue for the best part of four decades and the consensus on the issue is robust and adopted by all major medical and psychological associations. I'm sure that if you choose you can keep posting bad and discredited studies like Regnerus, Loren Marks, Paul Sullins and DW Allen. However, what is important is what the entire body of research says. What happens when you look at all the papers combined. When we do that we find that there is no difference.
Oh, and one final point. As another poster pointed out, the plural of anecdote is not data. The reason why we don't use anecdotes is because they are single, subjective, emotive arguments. It is better to examine hundreds or thousands of children instead to get a better representative picture.

noway12345

Ok, I've just seen the mod warning. I understand the referendum is on SSM but the issue we're talking about is the main issue coming out of the whole debate. People have genuine concerns, these can't be ignored. I think the referendum will pass and I hope it does but the support for SSM does not equal the support for homosexual people adopting or other things. The Irish people have had no say in something that we see as very important, that's a sad state of affairs in a supposed democracy. I'll leave it at that.

Kurtosis

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah its happening everywhere, while i disapprove i understand where the people doing it are coming from, im angry as well by the blatant lies being spouted on these poster's but still they should be left up.

TBH id prefer if posters weren't allowed at all but thats for another debate

It was actually a Yes poster!

I agree that posters for either side shouldn't be removed, however I can understand to some extent a person's motivation to remove an offensive or hurtful poster. It's difficult to see how this poster could be personally offensive to someone.

campingcarist

In my opinion it is about redefining marriage which should not be done. In a marriage, the two parties involved can procreate which is impossible with same sex couples.

I have absolutely no objection to same sex couples have all the legal rights that a married couple have. I can accept same sex couples living together as a legal entity but I cannot accept that they are married. Call it something else but do not impinge of the traditional definition of marriage

mickstupp

campingcarist wrote: »

In my opinion it is about redefining marriage which should not be done. In a marriage, the two parties involved can procreate which is impossible with same sex couples.

I have absolutely no objection to same sex couples have all the legal rights that a married couple have. I can accept same sex couples living together as a legal entity but I cannot accept that they are married. Call it something else but do not impinge of the traditional definition of marriage

So you're ok with the fact that the Christian church redefined marriage, but not anyone else...?

Daith

campingcarist wrote: »

In a marriage, the two parties involved can procreate which is impossible with same sex couples.

Except if they're infertile, old or do not want to actually have children.

Straight people can get married and do whatever they want. Gay people need to procreate apparently. (Even if they might be already raising children)

BlitzKrieg

In my opinion it is about redefining marriage which should not be done. In a marriage, the two parties involved can procreate which is impossible with same sex couples.

what about older people who get married or people where one of the spouses is infertile?

We dont test people for their ability to procreate prior to marriage, nor do we put some requirement on them to have children and make their marriage void if they dont.

Would you like it if we did do that?

Bannasidhe

campingcarist wrote: »

In my opinion it is about redefining marriage which should not be done. In a marriage, the two parties involved can procreate which is impossible with same sex couples.

I have absolutely no objection to same sex couples have all the legal rights that a married couple have. I can accept same sex couples living together as a legal entity but I cannot accept that they are married. Call it something else but do not impinge of the traditional definition of marriage

If it's called something else it is impossible for same-sex couples to have the same legal rights that a married couple have.

You can blame Dev for that. He didn't have to put special protections for marriage into the Constitution but he did so we either remove those references or we include 'the thing we are calling marriage when it's the gays' along side the reference to marriage or we extend marriage to same sex couples.

kylith

campingcarist wrote: »

In my opinion it is about redefining marriage which should not be done. In a marriage, the two parties involved can procreate which is impossible with same sex couples.

So we're back to banning the infertile and post-menopausal from marrying too.

campingcarist wrote: »

I have absolutely no objection to same sex couples have all the legal rights that a married couple have. I can accept same sex couples living together as a legal entity but I cannot accept that they are married. Call it something else but do not impinge of the traditional definition of marriage

Which traditional definition is that? The tradition of it being a merger of families for financial and political gain? The tradition of it being between a man and whatever woman whose dowry he can afford? The tradition of it being between a man and several women?

The fact that a man can't sell his 14 year old daughter to whoever he likes without her having a say in the matter means that marriage has ALREADY been redefined. The civil contract of marriage will not be changed, altered, or redefined by allowing more people to enter into it. Why would you have two identical systems but arbitrarily call one of them something else just to exclude a particular group?

VinLieger

noway12345 wrote: »

Ok, I've just seen the mod warning. I understand the referendum is on SSM but the issue we're talking about is the main issue coming out of the whole debate. People have genuine concerns, these can't be ignored. I think the referendum will pass and I hope it does but the support for SSM does not equal the support for homosexual people adopting or other things. The Irish people have had no say in something that we see as very important, that's a sad state of affairs in a supposed democracy. I'll leave it at that.

That issue has nothing to do with the referendum though no matter how much the no side continue to try and say it does.

The Irish people did have a say in this when they voted the government in to power, you don't agree with it? then talk to your TD