Fidelma Healy Eames at it again. Claims SSM might mean that Mother's Day is banned!

haveringchick

When I started reading this thread I was a yes voter.
Not only am I now a "don't know" im also not reading any more of this thread

anothernight

reprise wrote: »

Why not? all things being equal, why would a married couple not be seen as a providing a more stable environment than an unmarried couple seeking to adopt?

Because married status makes no difference to whether the environment is stable or not. That 'father' of mine that I mentioned? He was only around because my parents were married, and it was easier to stay together than to separate and then get a divorce. My own relationship is infinitely more stable than theirs, and I'm not yet married.

After five years without children, or two years with children, a cohabiting couple will have similar responsibilities to a married couple (but not certain rights), so all that remains is whether the relationship itself is stable. Since a marriage certificate doesn't actually certify that a relationship is stable, what difference should it make, when it comes to adoption?

Ave Sodalis

haveringchick wrote: »

When I started reading this thread I was a yes voter.
Not only am I now a "don't know" im also not reading any more of this thread

May we ask what changed your mind?

reprise

Shrap wrote: »

Are we talking about the same couple, just as either married or unmarried? Or two different couples? If it's the same couple, then after this bill is passed then there could be no preference either way. If two different couples, then it will be the couple best suited to care for the child.

Do you really believe that people deciding on the best environment for the child will disregard marital status?

Shrap

haveringchick wrote: »

When I started reading this thread I was a yes voter.
Not only am I now a "don't know" im also not reading any more of this thread

Sorry to hear that, but I too would love to know why you're now a "don't know"?

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

Do you really believe that people deciding on the best environment for the child will disregard marital status?

Yes. They already do by allowing single people to adopt.....remember?

reprise

Shrap wrote: »

Yes. They already do by allowing single people to adopt.....remember?

But that's not all things being equal now, is it?

Stark

haveringchick wrote: »

When I started reading this thread I was a yes voter.
Not only am I now a "don't know" im also not reading any more of this thread

Ah now. They're not really going to ban Mother's Day.

feargale

RobertKK wrote: »

Mothers day banned...when you hear ads saying about taking your mother out for a meal or doing something nice for her, it is kinda sad when your mother is not alive and is six feet under...
There is never talk about people whose mother is not around on mothers day...
That is something far bigger on a day like today...

You may as well say that football should be banned because disabled people can't play it. Mother's Day is about living mothers, not the bereaved. Bereaved people have the Day of Holy Souls, or whatever the non-believers' equivalent is.
P.S. Both my parents are deceased.

Shrap

Shrap wrote: »

Are we talking about the same couple, just as either married or unmarried? Or two different couples? If it's the same couple, then after this bill is passed then there could be no preference either way. If two different couples, then it will be the couple best suited to care for the child.

reprise wrote: »

But that's not all things being equal now, is it?

I tried answering your initial question. Then you asked if I really thought it was true that they wouldn't take marriage into account and I used the example of where they do not take marriage into account. Now we are back to where you have not answered my post above. Please try to ask a straight question (no pun intended).

reprise

Shrap wrote: »

I tried answering your initial question. Then you asked if I really thought it was true that they wouldn't take marriage into account and I used the example of where they do not take marriage into account. Now we are back to where you have not answered my post above. Please try to ask a straight question (no pun intended).

Where was your example?

I am referring to an adoption scenario where the child to be adopted has no ties to the prospective adoptive parents.

anothernight

reprise wrote: »

Where was your example?

I am referring to an adoption scenario where the child to be adopted has no ties to the prospective adoptive parents.

So why exactly would a married couple be able to provide a more stable environment than an unmarried couple that has spent years living together?

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

Where was your example?

I am referring to an adoption scenario where the child to be adopted has no ties to the prospective adoptive parents.

HERE.

Shrap wrote: »

Yes. They already do by allowing single people to adopt.....remember?

Jesus. H.

Then you got silly and said that was not all things being equal, so I referred you to my questions about this "all things being equal" business, which you still haven't answered. Not that this is making any sense anyway. I'm off to read a book.

reprise

anothernight wrote: »

So why exactly would a married couple be able to provide a more stable environment than an unmarried couple that has spent years living together?

Really a question for an adoption agency isn't it?

You might be surprised how much weight they give to it, all things being considered.

reprise

Shrap wrote: »

HERE.


Jesus. H.

Then you got silly and said that was not all things being equal, so I referred you to my questions about this "all things being equal" business, which you still haven't answered. Not that this is making any sense anyway. I'm off to read a book.

If it was making sense, I wouldn't have to ask you the same thing twice.

anothernight

reprise wrote: »

Really a question for an adoption agency isn't it?

You might be surprised how much weight they give to it, all things being considered.

I'm not asking whether they do. I'm asking, why should they?

reprise

anothernight wrote: »

I'm not asking whether they do. I'm asking, why should they?

Why should they choose the best environment for the child based on best practice and global experience? why not?

anothernight

Oh, but that wasn't the original question. The question is, "why exactly would a married couple be able to provide a more stable environment than an unmarried couple that has spent years living together?"

What makes a married couple more stable than a couple that is unmarried, but has been together for several years?

reprise

anothernight wrote: »

Oh, but that wasn't the original question. The question is, "why exactly would a married couple be able to provide a more stable environment than an unmarried couple that has spent years living together?"

What makes a married couple more stable than a couple that is unmarried, but has been together for several years?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94714302&postcount=375

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?con=515

anothernight

Right. So you assert that the married couple provides the best environment, because... the adopting agency has its own criteria.

Ok then. Good luck with your dodgy logic. I'm out.


Cringe.

reprise

anothernight wrote: »

Right. So you assert that the married couple provides the best environment, because... the adopting agency has its own criteria.

Ok then. Good luck with your dodgy logic. I'm out.


Cringe.

I added another link for your perusal.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?con=515

I think there is contact info there, where you can address your opposition to them placing the child first.

Cringe.

Whosthis

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I'm gay myself but apparently one school has already done this;

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865581793/Parents-rally-after-Canadian-elementary-school-bans-Mothers-Day-and-Fathers-Day-celebrations.html?pg=all

It's absurd. If we're going to live in a diverse society then we should be able to embrace the diversity, not make it taboo. Yes there'll be kids with only one parent (that's life), or kids with two same-sex parents but there's nothing intrinsically negative about having a Mother's/Father's day.

I really hope this doesn't catch on but some do-gooders will probably try.

There's twenty four pages in this thread and I'm a little late to the party so maybe somebody has pointed this out already but Mothers Day falls on a Sunday, both here and in the US, is it only me that see's the futility of a school banning an event on a Sunday?

Super-Rush

Usually i'd say why bother give her the air time, but fcuk me sometimes you just have to mock someone for being a complete fuckwit.

shruikan2553

Whosthis wrote: »

There's twenty four pages in this thread and I'm a little late to the party so maybe somebody has pointed this out already but Mothers Day falls on a Sunday, both here and in the US, is it only me that see's the futility of a school banning an event on a Sunday?

Wow, so the gays made schools close for Sundays so that they would avoid mothers day.

That gay lobby has more power than the stonemasons, illuminati, space nazis and opus dei put together.

Vote no to SSM or children will lose school days!

LDN_Irish

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Wow, so the gays made schools close for Sundays so that they would avoid mothers day.

That gay lobby has more power than the stonemasons, illuminati, space nazis and opus dei put together.

Opus Gei! *eyes swivel*

PopePalpatine

LordNorbury wrote: »

I haven't lived in Spain, Norway, Belgium or Canada, etc, so I haven't a clue what life over there is like, for kids raised by straight parents or for kids raised by gay parents. I believe that the best interests of a child, where possible, is to be raised by its biological parents.

Some of the unconventional paternity options that are lying just around the corner for us in this country, where as was mentioned in the media the other day, a gay man's mother going down the road of being a surrogate mother for her gay son's child, making her at the same time, the birth mother and biological grandmother of the child, and the gay father also being an uncle and a father to his child, if you think any of this is normal or healthy, then I really worry about where we are heading as a country:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/governments-experiment-with-the-lives-of-irelands-children-is-a-scandal-31044878.html

Using a David Quinn column? That's pathetic, I feel sorry for you that you fell for his bigotry.

PopePalpatine

Roy Incalculable Bedtime wrote: »

For anyone interested in the actual effects of same-sex parenting:

Quoting from this thread:

Sorry, but do you honestly believe the Brigade of Intelligent Gentlemen Opposed to Tolerance will read any of your links?

Annasopra

Shrap wrote: »

I have no problem with her voicing them either, but I am cynical enough to think that her honesty is questionable. At heart, I reckon she's just against SSM, and this it the issue she will try and swing the result to a "no" with. She spent a lot of time telling us that civil partnerships should be enough, and why would people look for equality when the same sex quality of their relationship makes them NOT equal to M/F relationships. Excuse me while I don't find her concerns about adoption all that genuine.....

Indeed

Especially when compared to what she said on July 7th 2010 during the introduction of Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2009

There are shortcomings in the Bill. There is a glaring omission in dealing with the needs of children, a source of major concern. We have an obligation to ensure children who have parents of the same sex are treated equally in the eyes of the State. This could have come about for various reasons, be it through the use of a donor, through a previous marriage or heterosexual relationship involving one of the same-sex couple. According to CSO 2006 census figures, one third of approximately 2,000 same-sex couples have children. These children must be taken into account and provisions need to be made to ensure they are protected.
The Bill does not address the issue of adoption and guardianship, leaving the law unchanged for same-sex couples. That is a major flaw and I would like the Minister to address it. When will we see the guardianship Bill? The Ombudsman for Children, when advising us on the adoption Bill, recommended that the categories eligible to apply for adoption should be extended to include same-sex couples and that if the Bill remained unchanged, it would continue to deny certain children the possibility of enjoying a permanent and secure legal relationship with both of their parents. Change is incremental. A guardianship Bill is needed to protect the rights of children of same-sex couples.

Shrap

Whosthis wrote: »

There's twenty four pages in this thread and I'm a little late to the party so maybe somebody has pointed this out already but Mothers Day falls on a Sunday, both here and in the US, is it only me that see's the futility of a school banning an event on a Sunday?

When they say "banning mother's day" in these schools, I would imagine that's more than a little bit hyperbolic anyway. I imagine that the schools in question will just "fail to acknowledge" the day by not using art class to instruct the children to make cards. That's all a school does, to my knowledge. All children of primary school age come home from school on the Friday before Mother's day armed to the teeth with cards.

Nobody is actually BANNING the day. They are FAILING TO ACKNOWLEDGE the day by not sticking hearts and flowers on cards.

Cienciano

Shrap wrote: »

When they say "banning mother's day" in these schools, I would imagine that's more than a little bit hyperbolic anyway. I imagine that the schools in question will just "fail to acknowledge" the day by not using art class to instruct the children to make cards. That's all a school does, to my knowledge. All children of primary school age come home from school on the Friday before Mother's day armed to the teeth with cards.

Nobody is actually BANNING the day. They are FAILING TO ACKNOWLEDGE the day by not sticking hearts and flowers on cards.

After reading up on the school in Canada, thats exactly what they did. So instead of some states banning it, its 2 schools not making cards in art class.