Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

galljga1

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's get a few things straightened out shall we?

Firstly, adoption is not the only means by which a same-sex couple can have a child and is actually less common than IVF.

Secondly, single gay people have been able to adopt children since the Adoption Act in 1991.

Thirdly, with the recent introduction of the Children and Family Relationships Act, gay couples can now apply to adopt as a couple.

Fourthly, children being raised by same-sex couples is not new and is not an experiment. Same-sex couples have been raising children for a long time. We've been studying its effects for over forty years now and the conclusions of all the research that has been done (and this can't be repeated often enough) is that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between children raised by gay couples and those raised by straight couples. This issue has been studied in every way possible from longitudinal studies tracking the children's development through to adulthood to large nationally representative surveys and even meta-analyses combining the data obtained from the many smaller studies out there. The evidence that same-sex couples are just as good parents as straight couples is about as robust as any evidence from any other field of science. If you'd like to find out more you can read the research here:

LGBT Parenting Research

Finally, civil partnership does not confer all the rights that civil marriage does. In fact there are 160 statutory differences between civil partnership and civil marriage. You can read them for yourself here:

List of differences between civil partnership and civil marriage

Well done. I was collating something similar. I do not have the patience for this anymore. Babbling idiots making statements which show that they simply have no idea what the actuality reality is, are starting to really annoy me.

floggg

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

To be honest I find this harping on about the special, separate virtues of mothers slightly patronising. Because we give birth to the child does not automatically make us better parents or make our love for our children superior to that of their father. My OH is actually the better parent in many respects in our relationship, he has more patience and more imagination when playing by a long way, he is more even tempered in the face of adversity and more pleasantly responsive to issues that occur between 1 and 7am.

I find that this argument from the no side insults both mothers and fathers. It is both reminiscent of a time when women were supposed to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and it is insulting to all the fathers who are excellent parents.

I have asked a number of times what it is that a mother and father each specifically bring to the table.

Genitals aside, nobody has been able to give me an answer.

shruikan2553

floggg wrote: »

I have asked a number of times what it is that a mother and father each specifically bring to the table.

Genitals aside, nobody has been able to give me an answer.

It's strange how nobody seems to be able to explain. It remind me of when children talk about something. Oh I know what it is, don't you? Is the only answer you get.

To Need a Woman

floggg wrote: »

I have asked a number of times what it is that a mother and father each specifically bring to the table.

Genitals aside, nobody has been able to give me an answer.

Well obviously, there's no short answer for a question like that. You'd have to sit you down and give a series of examples.

For example I don't think two lipstick lesbians would be equipped with the tools to raise a son. When he'd eventually grow up he'd end up bitter and resentful about who 'shaped' him when he didn't know any better.

shruikan2553

To Need a Woman wrote: »

Well obviously, there's no short answer for a question like that. You'd have to sit you down and give a series of examples.

For example I don't think two lipstick lesbians would be equipped with the tools to raise a son

Such as? Single mothers would have the same issue wouldn't they?

This is what I meant by vague answers that answer nothing.

Doctor Jimbob

floggg wrote: »

I have asked a number of times what it is that a mother and father each specifically bring to the table.

Genitals aside, nobody has been able to give me an answer.

And if someone considers genitals an essential component of parenting, they're definitely doing it wrong.

Doctor Jimbob

To Need a Woman wrote: »

Well obviously, there's no short answer for a question like that. You'd have to sit you down and give a series of examples.

For example I don't think two lipstick lesbians would be equipped with the tools to raise a son

That's not an example. That's literally just saying the same thing in a slightly different way.

To Need a Woman

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Such as? Single mothers would have the same issue wouldn't they?

So why make it any worse!

But having TWO mother(and not just one) would be more likely to make you into a nancy boy

Doctor Jimbob

To Need a Woman wrote: »

So why make it any worse!

But having TWO mother(and not just one) would be more likely to make you into a nancy boy

That's some solid math.

shruikan2553

To Need a Woman wrote: »

So why make it any worse!

But having TWO mother(and not just one) would be more likely to make you into a nancy boy

Based on? Psychological organisations say it is fine. What do you know that they don't? What is a nancy boy? What about raising girls?

Kiwi in IE

Can you please explain the terms 'Nancy Boy' and 'Lipstick Lesbian' To Need a Woman?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/call-for-radical-amendment-to-proposed-child-bill-1.2107097

“I love my kids but I could not do my wife’s job. I could not be a mother. I could not give my children what their mother gives them,” Professor Ray Kinsella, Mothers and Fathers Matter

I think Professor Kinsella would do well to reflect on these opinions and examine why he believes this is the case.

I think he would do better actually to reflect on this particular statement as it is grossly misleading -

Prof Kinsella argued that the Bill would “promote” arrangements under which children would be “intentionally denied” either a mother or a father.

He knows it is misleading because he has enclosed it in inverted commas. There is nothing in the Children and Family Relationship Bill which even suggests or even alludes to this being the case.

The fact he believes he can not give his children what their mother gives them most likely results from either a belief that he is an inadequate parent, or from his marriage being stuck in archaic, socially constructed gender roles. Either way it is sad if he feels inadequate as a parent but no reason to set up a campaign to try and promote these views as the social norm.

Notwithstanding the fact that the institution of marriage itself is a civil social construct that dates back centuries (certainly enough to be considered archaic), the fact is that his views are the social norm, and this is evidenced by the fact that it's only in recent years (the last 40 years or so in Ireland anyway, not really a long time at all) that view has begun to change.

I don't agree with his spreading misleading information, and I'm not defending him, but I do think it would play right into his hands to be drawing comparisons or ignoring the fact that more people voting are actually in opposite sex marriages, and any opinion which might be perceived as undermining their relationship and you could be in danger of making them feel alienated - the very thing you're trying to prevent for people who are LGBT who are already alienated from the opportunity to enter into the archaic socially constructed institution of civil marriage.

It's important to emphasise for people that the institution of civil marriage isn't being redefined, there will be no such thing as parents or children being denied anything, and in fact it will be quite the opposite - more opportunities and more rights and more protection for everyone in society now and for future generations to come.

Cold War Kid

Aaah, Paddy Manning - now there's a man who is utterly gutted at not being heterosexual. It must have been hard when he was younger in Ireland, for sure, but after a point, self loathing is very hard to empathise with IMO.

Anita Blow

To Need a Woman wrote: »

Hold on to your butts!

To Need a Woman wrote: »

For example I don't think two lipstick lesbians would be equipped with the tools to raise a son. When he'd eventually grow up he'd end up bitter and resentful about who 'shaped' him when he didn't know any better.

To Need a Woman wrote: »

But having TWO mother(and not just one) would be more likely to make you into a nancy boy

Where's the No voters decrying the accusations of homophobia now?

One eyed Jack

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Aaah, Paddy Manning - now there's a man who is utterly gutted at not being heterosexual. It must have been hard when he was younger in Ireland, for sure, but after a point, self loathing is very hard to empathise with IMO.

Aye, I thought it was a particular self-loathing myself, but having watched the clip linked to earlier, it seems his gripe is with the political system moreso than any internal self-hatred.

He seems pissed because we're not having a debate on the issues (this thread will self-destruct in five seconds, nothing to see here, no discussion, no sireee :pac: ), but I personally feel that Paddy is using this referendum to further his own political agenda (with his own political axe to grind) rather than actually giving a damn about what it's passing would mean for society. Paddy wants attention basically.


(his comments about surrogacy being "third-party prostitution" I found particularly vile, and were he to come out with a dramatic statement like that on primetime tv, I imagine far more than I would find his attitude repulsive)

floggg

To Need a Woman wrote: »

Well obviously, there's no short answer for a question like that. You'd have to sit you down and give a series of examples.

For example I don't think two lipstick lesbians would be equipped with the tools to raise a son. When he'd eventually grow up he'd end up bitter and resentful about who 'shaped' him when he didn't know any better.

Instead of trolling for a ban, wouldn't it just be easier to voluntarily stop posting this nonsense?

To Need a Woman

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Based on? Psychological organisations say it is fine. What do you know that they don't?

We can both refer to an organisation that suits our arguments!!!

shruikan2553 wrote: »

What is a nancy boy?

You're not doing yourself any favours there!

shruikan2553

To Need a Woman wrote: »

We can both refer to an organisation that suits our arguments!!!

You're not doing yourself any favours there!

Wow. Another non answer. i would love to see what you write in exams.

Would your organisations be recognised in dealing with children and psychology?

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think he would do better actually to reflect on this particular statement as it is grossly misleading -





He knows it is misleading because he has enclosed it in inverted commas. There is nothing in the Children and Family Relationship Bill which even suggests or even alludes to this being the case.









Notwithstanding the fact that the institution of marriage itself is a civil social construct that dates back centuries (certainly enough to be considered archaic), the fact is that his views are the social norm, and this is evidenced by the fact that it's only in recent years (the last 40 years or so in Ireland anyway, not really a long time at all) that view has begun to change.

I don't agree with his spreading misleading information, and I'm not defending him, but I do think it would play right into his hands to be drawing comparisons or ignoring the fact that more people voting are actually in opposite sex marriages, and any opinion which might be perceived as undermining their relationship and you could be in danger of making them feel alienated - the very thing you're trying to prevent for people who are LGBT who are already alienated from the opportunity to enter into the archaic socially constructed institution of civil marriage.

It's important to emphasise for people that the institution of civil marriage isn't being redefined, there will be no such thing as parents or children being denied anything, and in fact it will be quite the opposite - more opportunities and more rights and more protection for everyone in society now and for future generations to come.

I agree with the majority of your post in that the referendum has nothing to do with children or parents. However there is a relentless harping on from the no side about the 'special' roles of mothers and fathers and how they are essential in a child's upbringing. I don't think they should be let away with this when they are consistently unable to provide any explanation or evidence as to exactly what these 'special' roles, that each gender plays in the upbringing of children, that the other is incapable of, are!

To Need a Woman

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Wow. Another non answer. i would love to see what you write in exams.

Would your organisations be recognised in dealing with children and psychology?

My point is that there are so many studies and organisations out there that it wouldn't be too hard for anyone to find one that happens to support their view point. I don't have an organisation to reference because I naturally haven't felt the desire to look into this too much(as it doesn't effect me), but what's your organisation as a reference??

galljga1

To Need a Woman wrote: »

My point is that there are so many studies and organisations out there that it wouldn't be too hard for anyone to find one that happens to support their view point. I don't have an organisation to reference because I naturally haven't felt the desire to look into this too much(as it doesn't effect me), but what's your organisation as a reference??

Your general lack of knowledge seems to back up your point that you "haven't felt the desire to look into this too much".

Sonics2k

To Need a Woman wrote: »

My point is that there are so many studies and organisations out there that it wouldn't be too hard for anyone to find one that happens to support their view point. I don't have an organisation to reference because I naturally haven't felt the desire to look into this too much(as it doesn't effect me), but what's your organisation as a reference??

The ISPCC is an Irish one, they just released a large statement on the matter.

The -only- studies saying gay people don't make good parents are ones funded by right wing organizations that have already been proven to remove aspects of studies to suit their own needs. In other words, any study carried out saying gay couples aren't at least as good as a straight couple has been widely disproved by hundreds of non-biased organizations and studies.

shruikan2553

To Need a Woman wrote: »

My point is that there are so many studies and organisations out there that it wouldn't be too hard for anyone to find one that happens to support their view point. I don't have an organisation to reference because I naturally haven't felt the desire to look into this too much(as it doesn't effect me), but what's your organisation as a reference??

Im glad you asked me a question. Now it's time for:

Shruikan's Guide to Answering Questions
Look at the question.

but what's your organisation as a reference??

By looking at the questions we see that you are looking for an organisation. This means my answer should include an organisation. An example answer is shown below.

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
American Psychoanalytic Association
National Association of Social Workers
Child Welfare League of America
North American Council on Adoptable Children
Canadian Psychological Association
Australian Psychological Society
ISPCC

As we see the answer includes a list of organisations which aren't just 5 nut jobs in a room with an agenda. I recommend everyone finds a question asked of them and I can grade your answers and point out where they need improvement.

Links234

You know, I'd like to think that me and my girlfriend would make great parents one day, but it makes my heart sink to be told that we'd only want children as some sort of "experiment"

osarusan

Sonics2k wrote: »

The -only- studies saying gay people don't make good parents are ones funded by right wing organizations that have already been proven to remove aspects of studies to suit their own needs. In other words, any study carried out saying gay couples aren't at least as good as a straight couple has been widely disproved by hundreds of non-biased organizations and studies.

The other tactic, employed by people like Ioniainaianaian Patricia Casey, is to completely misrepresent the findings of actual academic studies, like she did with a study from Uppsala University.

She said the report showed that:

children...do best when raised by their married biological parents

This prompted one of the authors to respond that Casey's conclusions were:

not valid based on our findings... no comparisons were made with gay or lesbian family constellations in the studies included in the review. Therefore, there is nothing whatsoever in our review that would justify the conclusion that same-sex parents cannot raise healthy children who do well.

Or, like she did with a UNICEF report, claiming that it supported her views on SSM. This prompted the head of UNICEF Ireland to say that her claim of support was:

incorrect and unacceptable

That is how the Iona Institute operates in relation to actual research by actual academics.

Anita Blow

To Need a Woman wrote: »

My point is that there are so many studies and organisations out there that it wouldn't be too hard for anyone to find one that happens to support their view point. I don't have an organisation to reference because I naturally haven't felt the desire to look into this too much(as it doesn't effect me), but what's your organisation as a reference??

ISPCC and Barnardos (The 2 largest children's charities in the country)
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Paediatrics
Irish Psychological Association

I'm sure the No side can pluck some obscure right-wing organisations to support their view, but there is absolutely no way that such biased opinions can carry the same weight as the leading paediatric/psychological bodies both in Ireland and in the world.

galljga1

Links234 wrote: »

You know, I'd like to think that me and my girlfriend would make great parents one day, but it makes my heart sink to be told that we'd only want children as some sort of "experiment"

Its all an experiment Links. We make it up as we go along. Enjoy kids if you are lucky enough to have them.

shruikan2553

Anita Blow wrote: »

ISPCC and Barnardos (The 2 largest children's charities in the country)
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Paediatrics
Irish Psychological Association

I'm sure the No side can pluck some obscure right-wing organisations to support their view, but there is absolutely no way that such biased opinions can carry the same weight as the leading paediatric/psychological bodies both in Ireland and in the world.

But watch as it is tried. The common mistake made is everyones opinion is equal. It is not. My opinion on the moon is not equal to the opinion of some leading researcher in NASA.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I agree with the majority of your post in that the referendum has nothing to do with children or parents. However there is a relentless harping on from the no side about the 'special' roles of mothers and fathers and how they are essential in a child's upbringing. I don't think they should be let away with this when they are consistently unable to provide any explanation or evidence as to exactly what these 'special' roles, that each gender plays in the upbringing of children, that the other is incapable of, are!

Don't give into them and don't let them frame the debate then from their perspective. Instead of constantly allowing yourself to be put on the back foot and trying to argue and defend against their lies - frame the debate from your own positive perspective and give the reasons why this referendum will be a positive change in the lives of children and parents and everyone in society. Let them do all the hard work then to try and argue against your facts (some of the positives are already given in a statement from the ISPCC about the positive effects a yes vote in this referendum will have on the lives of children).

There is massive positive support in society already for marriage equality, but I've said it from day one that this is what we need to concentrate on solidifying and ignore getting distracted by having to argue against people that the vast majority in society either have never heard of, or simply pay no attention to.

The "no" campaigners know all too well they haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of winning this referendum on it's merits alone, so their tactics are instead simply to distract people and make marriage equality campaigners look bad instead, make themselves look like everyone is picking on them.

They're purposely making themselves look like idiots in an effort to gain sympathy from the public, and they will do it in every media campaign and every social media outlet that enables them to do so, because they don't care that they look like the persecuted idiots, it actually helps their campaign to come in for so much criticism. They're thinking about the end goal which is a "no" vote, and they don't care how they get there. How they got there isn't going to change the fact that they'll have won, and marriage equality will have been lost.

We're the people with everything to lose, the no side have nothing to lose, and as much as I hate it, yes, it is a PR campaign, and one in which the people on the "no" side are incredibly skilled at and have plenty more experience and resources than those advocating for a yes vote in the upcoming referendum.

Anita Blow

shruikan2553 wrote: »

But watch as it is tried. The common mistake made is everyones opinion is equal. It is not. My opinion on the moon is not equal to the opinion of some leading researcher in NASA.

The head of the Irish Psychological Association specifically cautioned the No side against plucking such obscure low quality studies to back up their point.

Empirical studies have failed to find reliable differences between the children of same-sex and heterosexual couples with regard to their gender identity, gender role behaviour, sexual orientation, mental health or psychological and social adjustment.

Research can have far-reaching implications, especially for the many children of gay parents, and the lesbian and gay adolescents and families who are at the centre of the marriage referendum. These young people are so sensitive to what they hear from friends and media. Debate and conversation are absolutely essential, but psychological research must be accurately represented

Historically, psychological research has been used to justify the unjust treatment of minorities, and the PSI is committed to ensuring that psychological research is not used, inadvertently or otherwise, to repeat such injustices

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/psychologists-caution-against-outdated-material-in-gay-marriage-debate-1.2123688