Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

tessat

Did anybody else take the 35 minutes out of their day and watch th video of David Quinn waffling on "and our government are ok with this?" Nodding to themselves thinking isn't it great that our government support equality?

And when he said that "by design" children would be able to have 2 married parents without distinction to their sex, I couldn't help but think, you're spot on there David, fantastic news.

i agreed with many things that he said in the speech, I just found them to be incredibly positive instead of earth ending doomsday style events as he seems to think they are.

To Need a Woman

shruikan2553 wrote: »

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

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



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.

I'll go with my gut.... that I am not convinced that two lipstick lesbians are NOT equipped with tools to raise a non-nancy boy!!

And I never failed to answer your questions, so get off your high horse. You didn't specifically ask me to mention an organisation, you just asked me what an nancy boy was.... to which I obviously did not engage.

shruikan2553

To Need a Woman wrote: »

I'll go with my gut.... that I am not convinced that two lipstick lesbians are NOT equipped with tools to raise a non-nancy boy!!

Right, because your gut knows far more. :rolleyes: Where can I view studies published by your gut? Brains tend to be better at this sort of thing anyway.
It tends to be the fallback when people need an excuse. My gut tells me you just might not like gay people.

To Need a Woman wrote: »

And I never failed to answer your questions, so get off your high horse. You didn't specifically ask me to mention an organisation, you just asked me what an nancy boy was.... to which I obviously did not engage.

No you didn't.

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

Here I asked you what your view was based on.

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

Here you made no mention of what your view was based on.

G_R

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Right, because your gut knows far more. :rolleyes:
It tends to be the fallback when people need an excuse. My gut tells me you just might not like gay people.



No you didn't.



Here I asked you what your view was based on.



Here you made no mention of what your view was based on.

Mod Note:

To Need a Woman won't be able to reply to this for a couple of days.

Please don't reply to this post.

galljga1

To Need a Woman wrote: »

I'll go with my gut.... that I am not convinced that two lipstick lesbians are NOT equipped with tools to raise a non-nancy boy!!

And I never failed to answer your questions, so get off your high horse. You didn't specifically ask me to mention an organisation, you just asked me what an nancy boy was.... to which I obviously did not engage.

That is a triple negative meaning a lesbian couple can raise a boy who is heterosexual. I agree totally.
They are perfectly capable (or not, as homosexuality or heterosexuality are no guaranteed of parenting ability) of raising a heterosexual or homosexual child of either gender.

Kiwi in IE

To Need a Woman wrote: »

I'll go with my gut.... that I am not convinced that two lipstick lesbians are NOT equipped with tools to raise a non-nancy boy!!

And I never failed to answer your questions, so get off your high horse. You didn't specifically ask me to mention an organisation, you just asked me what an nancy boy was.... to which I obviously did not engage.

I think you should be publicly campaigning for the no side via media. You'd do us a huge favour. Can you apply to represent the no vote in a television interview or something similar? Please?

Sonics2k

To Need a Woman wrote: »

I'll go with my gut.... that I am not convinced that two lipstick lesbians are NOT equipped with tools to raise a non-nancy boy!!

And I never failed to answer your questions, so get off your high horse. You didn't specifically ask me to mention an organisation, you just asked me what an nancy boy was.... to which I obviously did not engage.

It's funny because this is actually kind of sexist in it's own little way. Are you under some belief that all men should be like some kind of Wolverine? Big and muscular, chopping down trees and providing mountains of cash for his little wife who's sole duty is to cook, clean and pop little baby macho men out once a year.

I got some news for you, that's not how this works.

Cienciano

tessat wrote: »

Did anybody else take the 35 minutes out of their day and watch th video of David Quinn waffling on "and our government are ok with this?" Nodding to themselves thinking isn't it great that our government support equality?

And when he said that "by design" children would be able to have 2 married parents without distinction to their sex, I couldn't help but think, you're spot on there David, fantastic news.

i agreed with many things that he said in the speech, I just found them to be incredibly positive instead of earth ending doomsday style events as he seems to think they are.

I'd rather spend 35 minutes shaving my ballbag with a straight razor than watch him. Although, point taken

shruikan2553

Anita Blow wrote: »

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


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

Sadly nobody who isn't already in agreement with them will listen to it. The people who are likely to listen to research rather than prejudice will already know while the rest will ignore countless mentions of the children and family relationships bill and make up their own facts.

Links234

You know, I feel it's pretty damn telling that someone would consider it a failure on the part of the parents if their child was a "nancy boy" (itself a horribly judgmental and insulting term), as if there was something wrong with that at all, that a boy might be sensitive and caring? It definitely seems like the no side have a hankering to return us to the 1950's.

floggg

Links234 wrote: »

You know, I feel it's pretty damn telling that someone would consider it a failure on the part of the parents if their child was a "nancy boy" (itself a horribly judgmental and insulting term), as if there was something wrong with that at all, that a boy might be sensitive and caring? It definitely seems like the no side have a hankering to return us to the 1950's.

In fairness, that poster was pathetically and obviously ignorant and offensive that I doubt where it was posted for anything other than to offend.

Wonder whether it had anything to do with some other recent bans handed out?

Ave Sodalis

In fairness Links, by their logic, as transgender, you should be the perfect parent.

Links234

sup_dude wrote: »

In fairness Links, by their logic, as transgender, you should be the perfect parent.

Ah I think they'd be afraid that I'd warp any kids I might have, probably raise them on a steady diet of Star Trek and Ghibli, or they might be right to worry, what if my taste in music rubs off on them? What then? :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLNgD5vsZsM

Zen65

Cienciano wrote: »

I'd rather spend 35 minutes shaving my ballbag with a straight razor than watch him.

What an image This suggestion made my day!!

To Need a Woman

I heard Michael Martin say that Finn Fail are in favour of gay marriage(yesterday ardeche). Fine Fail are becoming a good party & I think they have mended their ways. This is yet another example of how they are a politically fashion forward thinking party.

Homosexuals are people too! Go Fine Fail

LookingFor

I'd appreciate hearing one No campaigner articulate how a No vote will pragmatically improve any child's circumstances in this country before claiming a monopoly on concern for the welfare of children.

Believe me, I've thought long and hard about kids here. I've put this question to three no campaigners and have never had a straight answer. It's as if they haven't actually thought about this! The most common answer I get is 'it will vindicate the right to a mother and father' - a statement that typically precedes acceptance that if the referendum fails, it would not be in the interest of any child to be taken away from their gay parents to be given to a mother and father.

This referendum is not about one group's ideals. It's not a referendum on who has kids. As far as kids go, it's simply about whether we want to give the option of first class legal status and protection in this country to only some two parent households or to more. The argument for withholding status as a means of deterrence is an argument for throwing some families under the constitutional bus. Because yes or no, there will always be kids being raised by same sex parents.

Links234

To Need a Woman wrote: »

I heard Michael Martin say that Finn Fail are in favour of gay marriage(yesterday ardeche). Fine Fail are becoming a good party & I think they have mended their ways. This is yet another example of how they are a politically fashion forward thinking party.

Homosexuals are people too! Go Fine Fail

What's your point?

I'm genuinely curious, are you suggesting that because Fianna Fail are backing marriage equality that all is suddenly forgiven?

To Need a Woman

Links234 wrote: »

What's your point?

I'm genuinely curious, are you suggesting that because Fianna Fail are backing marriage equality that all is suddenly forgiven?

I was taking the piss!

S.O

Ave Sodalis

S.O., do you know what you're voting on?

otto_26

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well, if anyone is qualified for that its hardline Catholics.

But even more qualified are hardline non religious people :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

otto_26 wrote: »

But even more qualified are hardline non religious people :rolleyes:

You've nothing to worry about, Enver Hoxha hasn't taken over any LGBT activist boy in Ireland.

Patrick Wheelock

Links234 wrote: »

What's your point?

I'm genuinely curious, are you suggesting that because Fianna Fail are backing marriage equality that all is suddenly forgiven?

So because Fianna Fail are in favour of a YES vote, you're going to vote NO?

Arseh*le.

shruikan2553

S.O wrote: »

Have you found out what happens to a child without a mother or a father yet? Or have you disappeared until you find another random link from the internet.

kunst nugget

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

So because Fianna Fail are in favour of a YES vote, you're going to vote NO?

Arseh*le.

Christ almighty, Links is the last person who'd vote no...

FunLover18

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

So because Fianna Fail are in favour of a YES vote, you're going to vote NO?

Arseh*le.

Where did they say that?

wetfoot

I've been trying my best to follow all the assorted arguments about marriage and gays but I've become a bit confused as most of the talk seems to be about children and how married gays will affect children.

Does this mean that if gay marriage becomes law, as a gay, I'm going to be allocated one? Will it be compulsory for gays to have children? If so, I'm voting no. I'm perfectly happy with the cat and the dog and my walls don't wipe clean.

Bannasidhe

wetfoot wrote: »

I've been trying my best to follow all the assorted arguments about marriage and gays but I've become a bit confused as most of the talk seems to be about children and how married gays will affect children.

Does this mean that if gay marriage becomes law, as a gay, I'm going to be allocated one? Will it be compulsory for gays to have children? If so, I'm voting no. I'm perfectly happy with the cat and the dog and my walls don't wipe clean.

Does my having the grand kids for a night and most of a day twice a month count towards my allocation cos honestly, I'm so over the whole child rearing lark and I have 5 dogs like and they take priority now...

Links234

Patrick Wheelock wrote: »

So because Fianna Fail are in favour of a YES vote, you're going to vote NO?

Arseh*le.

Um, yes. That's exactly it. I was all aboard the yes train, but as soon as someone I don't like said they supported yes, I was all like ah **** it I'm voting now just to spite them. Totally.

Trudiha

wetfoot wrote: »

I've been trying my best to follow all the assorted arguments about marriage and gays but I've become a bit confused as most of the talk seems to be about children and how married gays will affect children.

Does this mean that if gay marriage becomes law, as a gay, I'm going to be allocated one? Will it be compulsory for gays to have children? If so, I'm voting no. I'm perfectly happy with the cat and the dog and my walls don't wipe clean.

That's the least of your problems, you're going to have to take up loud sodomy as well.