Adoption/parenting aspects of SSM

MrWalsh

Mod note: Split from other thread

eagle eye wrote: »

If I had any involvement in decisions over who gets to adopt a child I'd have the order hetrosexual couple, lesbian couple, single female, gay male couple and single man as the order of preference.

Non ideal families exist all around us. Im sure plenty of single mothers would prefer that their childs father showed an interest.

I think you are probably also looking at this from the perspective of a stranger being adopted by a couple. There are virtually no adoptions of this nature in Ireland anymore. Most adoptions are within a family to save a child being taken into care by social services, to help out when a family member has an addiction problem, a disabling accident or disease or is dead etc....

So most same sex couple adoptions will actually be of the nature of one partner adopting the other partners child so that in the event of death or catastophic medical situation that the person who is raising the child who is NOT biologically related is actually still the legal guardian. Before the Children and Family Relationships Act you had situations where a child could be taken from a parent who was raising them for years because the biological parent had died. This just offers extra protection for children.

Most heterosexual married couples who try to adopt in Ireland cannot anyway because there are no children available and most countries have closed their borders to foreign adoptions.

Anyway, all of the above, while interesting, is not even part of this referendum and is handled in the Children and Family Relationships Act.

Sorry - posted before I saw the mod post.

galljga1

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm a yes voting single male parent and i can see clearly the need for a mother for a girl at least.

I am a yes voting single male parent with a girl approaching puberty and we seem to be doing o.k. We would dearly love for her mother to be here but you have to play the cards you are dealt.

NewDirection

eagle eye wrote: »

It's not against men as such, just that I believe that a mother is so important in the life of a child. I'm a father myself and my partner always tells me and others that I'm a great father but I am certain that I would never be able to do the job that a mother does. I don't think men are capable of doing that job. Obviously there might be that one in a million but women are just so much better at it for the most part.

What exactly is this job that mothers can do but fathers can't? I keep hearing this rolled out, but nobody talks in specifics. (Barring breastfeeding, I just don't see it)

eagle eye wrote: »

If I had any involvement in decisions over who gets to adopt a child I'd have the order hetrosexual couple, lesbian couple, single female, gay male couple and single man as the order of preference.

I'd go with the couple / individual who put forward the best case for the child on a case by case basis instead of making presumptions before seeing the specifics.

Ash.J.Williams

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But.
I wasn't dismissing.
I was asking him to explain what he thought those gender defined roles are...

No one seems to be able to explain it other than in terms that some might say look a inseey winceey bit sexist..

Personally, I think implying only mother's can do the nur-cher kissy better talk bout periods stuff is insulting to fathers.

that's not what i implied and i'm not defining anything...there's no definition of parenting it just happens

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

that's not what i implied and i'm not defining anything...there's no definition of parenting it just happens

Absolutely agree with that. There is no real definition or handbook or course or anything like that.

What we do have though is a fair idea the kind of things children need for a healthy and successful upbringing. Things like love - food - education - stability - safety - security - understanding - guidance.

And when you read down the list - or at least when I read down the list - I can find nothing that one sex is better at than the other - let alone something one sex is precluded.

When it comes to stability however - this referendum and thread is about allowing two persons freedom to engage with the institute of marriage - without reference or distinction based on their sex - and I would expect that one of the ideal of the marital bond is stability?

So while it has been correctly pointed out that this thread and referendum has NOTHING to do with parenting and who a childs parents will be - it will in some small way affect those who are already being raised by same sex parents by giving them the stability and institutions afforded married people.

And I think we agree this is a good thing.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely agree with that. There is no real definition or handbook or course or anything like that.

What we do have though is a fair idea the kind of things children need for a healthy and successful upbringing. Things like love - food - education - stability - safety - security - understanding - guidance.

And when you read down the list - or at least when I read down the list - I can find nothing that one sex is better at than the other - let alone something one sex is precluded.

When it comes to stability however - this referendum and thread is about allowing two persons freedom to engage with the institute of marriage - without reference or distinction based on their sex - and I would expect that one of the ideal of the marital bond is stability?

So while it has been correctly pointed out that this thread and referendum has NOTHING to do with parenting and who a childs parents will be - it will in some small way affect those who are already being raised by same sex parents by giving them the stability and institutions afforded married people.

And I think we agree this is a good thing.

I'll rephrase my point....

This weekend i made a mental note to include more female role models into my parenting experience, because what girl wants to hang out with her da 24/7?

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But.
I wasn't dismissing.
I was asking him to explain what he thought those gender defined roles are...

No one seems to be able to explain it other than in terms that some might say look a inseey winceey bit sexist..

Personally, I think implying only mother's can do the nur-cher kissy better talk bout periods stuff is insulting to fathers.

Ok well I've never had a problem with being seen as sexist, so from where I stand, from my personal experience, both men and women do bring different sides to the table. We could argue all day over anecdotal experience and indeed statistics, but realistically speaking, for me it's more than just about period talk or who shaves who or any of the rest of it (I was 12 when my mother sat me down with a bic razor and talcum powder and shaved my face for me! ).

Both my parents were from the "tough shìt" school of parenting, there was no time for emotions like love and so on, they were both entirely pragmatic in their approach to parenting (and yes, I've mentioned before that they were of the particularly fundie "devoutly religious" variety). They were unusually cruel when they wanted to be, but even then I could see differences in how they chose to inflict cruelty - my old man was both a mix of physical beating and psychological manipulation, and my mother was a mix of emotional and psychological manipulation.

I was only lucky that I had my elderly widowed next door neighbour who I often give credit to for raising me because that's pretty much what she did, instilling in me an empathy and compassion for other people and showing me that religion wasn't all fire and brimstone and on your knees for a decade of the rosary. She showed me a completely different take on many different things. There was a relationship between us which I could never articulate at the time, but I know it felt different to the way I felt about my parents.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think my parents were bad people, and I could never think that. I just think they were misguided, and miserable, and bitter, but they too taught me so much that I will never be able to repay them for. Had it not been for my mothers persistence, I wouldn't be able to read or write as I am now if she had listened to every expert who told her that because of my below average IQ I would probably fare better in a special school. She didn't listen when my father rejected me as never going to amount to anything. His attitude only changed when he saw I was particularly gifted mathematically and only then was I considered worthy of helping him in his workshop or being let near a lathe (I became "useful").

My mother schooled me in the Arts and languages, my father schooled me in engineering and mathematics, neither of whom would ever show or entertain emotion, except of course anger. They had that one down alright. But it was my neighbour who nurtured my emotional intelligence.

Some people may see that as "ugh, sexist traditional role play and stereotyping", but it's not an atypical perspective, and it's one that I've learned from in my own relationship where I tell my wife that I couldn't do what I do every day, without her doing what she does every day. My wife works in the home and has done a fantastic job of raising our child almost single-handed, something which I know I couldn't have done so easily, only if I had to, because then there would have been a need, as opposed to it being a conscious choice.

We can talk all day about the best "parenting configuration" for children and all the rest of it, but there's a hell of a lot more to it than that, and academic arguments where we overlook people's experiences in favour of idealism are just never going to gain any traction.

I think that parents of the same sex should be able to argue for same sex parenting on it's own merits, based on their experiences (and let's be honest, you've done a damn good job!), and shouldn't get bogged down in an arguing comparisons or otherwise between other parenting "configurations" (an awful fcuking word in that context tbh), because that's how you change people's attitudes, by showing people not that there's no difference, but that there's no comparison!

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'll rephrase my point....

This weekend i made a mental note to include more female role models into my parenting experience, because what girl wants to hang out with her da 24/7?

I think that is the point though - that there is no female role TO model. Historically what was it? To cook - clean - and not vote? I dunno - but what is it today? Aside from the obvious role in the reproductive process I am not seeing a "role" any more. Good role models for being good PEOPLE I can see the utility of - that is something genuinely worth modelling.

As for hanging out with your dad 24/7 do not sell yourself too short I know my own daughter although young can not get enough of me and would revel in full immersion. But who wants to hang around with ANYONE 24/7 really? Include more PEOPLE in the lives of a child - and the roles genuinely worth modeling will likely sort themselves out in time.

And to keep this on topic - what is genuinely worth modelling is love and commitment and understanding - and the facilitation in our society of people who genuinely find love in a dark world - without distinction based on the contents of their underwear. Something - given we are both yes voters - I think we can agree on. If marriage is to be said to be "for" anything any more - then a monument to love and commitment is it - and I vote yes in this referendum so we can model that role for our future and current generations.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I stand, from my personal experience, both men and women do bring different sides to the table.

But what those things are are genuinely a mystery to me. You bring up useful anecdotes about mothers teaching shaving - or fathers doing the period talks - and I can sit here and regale you to boredom about how my 4.5 year old daughter can already do things like wire a plug - and identify and select different varieties of tools for specific purposes.

But at best this tells us to tell us what the things brought to the table are NOT - not what they ARE. So the mystery remains. Your own anecdotes about the differences in your mother - father - and neighbour parent are suggestive not of the benefits of the different sexes - but of different people and characters. And I am _all_ for that. I endevor to expose my children to as many different people as possible - and have them get close to and know as many of their relatives as possible as often as possible. So their influences and guidance in life will not be from "one man and two women" but from all their peers and elders in and out of the family.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We can talk all day about the best "parenting configuration" for children and all the rest of it, but there's a hell of a lot more to it than that

There is - which is why I fear it to be a red herring argument. I think it is coming at it from EXACTLY the wrong direction. Considering the parental configuration rather than the requirements of the actual children. I think the latter makes more sense. We consider the things the children actually need for successful and healthy upbringing - and then optimise how each parental configuration can achieve them - by structuring society and society support to best accommodate each one by supporting the areas where each configuration is challenged in achieving the contents of that list.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We can talk all day about the best "parenting configuration" for children and all the rest of it, but there's a hell of a lot more to it than that, and academic arguments where we overlook people's experiences in favour of idealism are just never going to gain any traction.

I think that's right but, more than that, I don't think the vote is about using the law to promote some kind of perfect family.

Whether gay parents are better or worse than anyone else is largely irrelevant. It's about how the law provides for some aspects of family law; how it should deal, for the sake of argument, with bad parents, whether the parents are married or single.

A family could be a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son (I'm sure everyone could pick similar configurations from their experience). Does anyone see this referendum as having any application in that situation? I don't.

In a sense, the issue is more around that. Do people feel there's something added or subtracted by including gay couples in a marriage framework? Do we feel that a gay couple fit into that framework, and not the framework occupied by a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son? Do we feel that a civil partnership doesn't close the gap? Are we satisified that a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son don't need something like a civil partnership?

CramCycle

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In a sense, the issue is more around that. Do people feel there's something added or subtracted by including gay couples in a marriage framework?

I feel there is something added.

Do we feel that a gay couple fit into that framework, and not the framework occupied by a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son?

That would be a family framework, not a marriage framework. Both fit into the family framework, as far as I know the grandmother and her two daughters and a son do not fit into the marriage framework.

Do we feel that a civil partnership doesn't close the gap?

It does not the close the gap, if it did, marriage would be redundant in the eyes of the law as you would have two names for the same thing. They are different.

Are we satisfied that a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son don't need something like a civil partnership?

They have one, the same one I have with my kids.

One eyed Jack

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think that's right but, more than that, I don't think the vote is about using the law to promote some kind of perfect family.

Whether gay parents are better or worse than anyone else is largely irrelevant. It's about how the law provides for some aspects of family law; how it should deal, for the sake of argument, with bad parents, whether the parents are married or single.

Legislation already exists to address those circumstances.

A family could be a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son (I'm sure everyone could pick similar configurations from their experience). Does anyone see this referendum as having any application in that situation? I don't.

Yes, because if the grandmother were a lesbian who wanted to marry her girlfriend, she wouldn't be able to, nor would her daughters be able to marry their girlfriends if they were lesbian, and if their son were gay, well, you get the idea.

In a sense, the issue is more around that. Do people feel there's something added or subtracted by including gay couples in a marriage framework?

Of course there are many benefits to society by giving same sex couples the opportunity to enter into civil marriage in the same way as opposite sex couples. There is nothing which would detract from giving same sex couples the same opportunities as opposite sex couples.

Do we feel that a gay couple fit into that framework, and not the framework occupied by a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son?

Does the word 'consanguinuity' mean anything to you? The person's you talk about are already family related to each other by blood. Marriage offers couples not already related to each other to form a family as recognised by the State.

Do we feel that a civil partnership doesn't close the gap? Are we satisified that a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son don't need something like a civil partnership?

You know damn well what civil partnership is, and you know what civil marriage is, and you know that the above "configuration" as you present it has nothing to do with either. Where's this "gap" you talk about that isn't already addressed in current legislation?