Full rights for the LGBT community.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&source=hp&q=DYING+ROOMS+CHINA&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=f3a2f2d0bf3c98c7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94trCVCrLo

.

Single parents are just as caring and loving to their children as two parents. Two parents is of course better, and this has been researched and proven. It has also been researched and proven that children of LGB parents do as good/better than children of straight parents.

.

I cant see how the numbers of LGB parents is high enough for a meaningful comparative study to be carried out !

Dr. Baltar

anymore wrote: »

I cant see how the numbers of LGB parents is high enough for a meaningful comparative study to be carried out !

The studies I have read range from ones done in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands to California.
There are literally thousands of LGB families around the world.

ardmacha

Not necessarily true, there are thousands of children doing well who do not have a male and female role model in their family.

No doubt, children do well despite disadvantages of all sorts. But we should not try to create these disadvantages if they can be avoided.

Dr. Baltar

ardmacha wrote: »

No doubt, children do well despite disadvantages of all sorts. But we should not try to create these disadvantages if they can be avoided.

I fail to see how a child being raised by two loving parents of the same sex gives them a disadvantage.

Annasopra

ardmacha wrote: »

No doubt, children do well despite disadvantages of all sorts. But we should not try to create these disadvantages if they can be avoided.

What disadvantages?

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

The studies I have read range from ones done in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands to California.
There are literally thousands of LGB families around the world.

Thousands in a world of 7 billion ?
Point made I think !

Johnnymcg wrote: »

What disadvantages?

Well the disadvantage of being brought up by persons of one sex only - you ' Men are from Mars and women from Venus - it is relevant.
And the disadvantage of not being allowed to know one of a kid's natural parents, knowing that for one parent, you were simply a commodity to be given away.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yes, but gay couples are not currently allowed to adopt. As for legislation, well would the government really take a deeply unpopular line and damage itself for a cause that it doesn't need to. There will have to be broad support across majority of the population before they will consider taking the step.

Governments continually vote through unpopular legislation. Recent finance bills or the legislation establishing NAMA comes to mind. Again, you seem to want to single this particular legislation out for special treatment.

oppenheimer1 wrote:

80% of people support some form of civil partnership yet the government is dragging its heels as they feel it could be quite divisive.

If 80% support it, how could it be divisive?

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting point. I would agree that these people should be supported in the interim, but that the State should ensure that IVF resources, and adoptive services are used by those who can provide a child with both a mother and a father primarily.

How do you propose that they should be "supported in the interim"? And into the future, given that no political party supports restricting adoption to married couples?

Apogee wrote: »

How do you propose that they should be "supported in the interim"? And into the future, given that no political party supports restricting adoption to married couples?

Good question. By in the interim, I mean giving legal redress in the event that one of the two partners in a LGBT relationship dies so that any dependants aren't left in a difficult situation.

However, I do believe that the State should be ensuring that situations such as these do not arise as often. Or perhaps the State should be more open to the idea of giving the biological father a say in such a situation.

As for political parties and the like, I don't personally subscribe to any. I'm merely pointing out what I would find to be preferable concerning marriage, relationships and family.

Dr. Baltar

anymore wrote: »

Thousands in a world of 7 billion ?
Point made I think !

Those native American families must really be bad.
I know this because there is such a limited amount of reasearch carried out on their families.

However, Asian studies are always the most reliable because by comprising more than one sixth of the world's population, the research carried out on them must be better and more effective for all other people in society.

Every Figure when considered in the context of the wor'ds total population is miniscule

Well the disadvantage of being brought up by persons of one sex only - you ' Men are from Mars and women from Venus - it is relevant.

Illustrate for me please, how being brought up by two members of the same sex who care deeply for their child leaves said child at a disadvantage to other children.

And the disadvantage of not being allowed to know one of a kid's natural parents, knowing that for one parent, you were simply a commodity to be given away.

We should make adoption illegal altogether in that case.

Sandvich

I honestly can't think of a single intellectually honest reason against it, haven't seen one in this thread, and while many issues have many different and possibly equally valid viewpoints, this comes off as a fairly one sided one that people only oppose out of traditionalism rather than any real care for the wellbeing of those around them. There is no reason to oppose gay adoption if you don't oppose ginger adoption or single parents.

oppenheimer1

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I fail to see how a child being raised by two loving parents of the same sex gives them a disadvantage.

The disadvantage of not having both a male and female role model. Very necessary in a childs development, all too often we see the problems where this isn't the case.

Liam Byrne

Sandvich wrote: »

There is no reason to oppose gay adoption if you don't oppose ginger adoption or single parents.

I don't know what "ginger adoption" has to do with anything.

But I do oppose single parents as a "choice".

God forbid that would be viewed as a judgement on those who "end up" in that situation, doing their best (and in many cases a damn good job despite the circumstances).

But it's not ideal, so my point is that it shouldn't be available as a choice for single people who simply "want" a child.

By the by, is adoption a right to begin with? - The State has the duty to deny this opportunity to certain people so it could hardly be seen as a right.

Jakkass wrote: »

Good question. By in the interim, I mean giving legal redress in the event that one of the two partners in a LGBT relationship dies so that any dependants aren't left in a difficult situation.

What do you mean by "legal redress"?

Jakkass wrote:

However, I do believe that the State should be ensuring that situations such as these do not arise as often.

How do you propose the State do this?

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

By the by, is adoption a right to begin with? - The State has the duty to deny this opportunity to certain people so it could hardly be seen as a right.

No, adoption is not a right, however being allowed to apply or be considered is in my view. The correct term that should be used is 'The right to apply to adopt'

Johnnymcg wrote: »

No, adoption is not a right, however being allowed to apply or be considered is in my view. The correct term that should be used is 'The right to apply to adopt'

I'd disagree, the State has the right to hinder or screen any cases that wouldn't be preferable to the childs development if such a situation arises. Although, I would be open to the idea of allowing LGBT couples to apply for adoption, but for this to only take place in the absence of any suitable couple which comprises of both a mother and a father.

Laminations

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd disagree, the State has the right to hinder or screen any cases that wouldn't be preferable to the childs development if such a situation arises. Although, I would be open to the idea of allowing LGBT couples to apply for adoption, but for this to only take place in the absence of any suitable couple which comprises of both a mother and a father.

Do you have research evidence that proves children are at a disadvantage being raised by a LGBT couple or that sexual orientation significantly affects parenting skills? Bullying is not a legitimate disadvantage because it's in no way specific to this issue

Laminations wrote: »

Do you have research evidence that proves children are at a disadvantage being raised by a LGBT couple or that sexual orientation significantly affects parenting skills? Bullying is not a legitimate disadvantage because it's in no way specific to this issue

There is plenty of research done into the difference that gender roles make in a childs life. If you wish to look into this, it is a google search away. I have posted these in threads before, but I have found that it becomes a situation of copying and pasting links rather than actually discussing. So I'll be refraining from it here.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd disagree, the State has the right to hinder or screen any cases that wouldn't be preferable to the childs development if such a situation arises.

The Adoption Board already screen applicants for suitability. They have ample experience in choosing what's in the best interest of the child.

Jakkass wrote:

Although, I would be open to the idea of allowing LGBT couples to apply for adoption, but for this to only take place in the absence of any suitable couple which comprises of both a mother and a father.

Why is that stipulation required? Surely it would be better, for example, to give preference to a same-sex couple where one of the partners (e.g. uncle) has a blood relationship to the child, over an opposite-sex couple with no ties whatsoever to the child?

[Deleted User]

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The disadvantage of not having both a male and female role model. Very necessary in a childs development, all too often we see the problems where this isn't the case.

Surely the child would have other family members/teachers etc? They're not locked up in isolation with their parents for all their formative years

danman

bluewolf wrote: »

Surely the child would have other family members/teachers etc? They're not locked up in isolation with their parents for all their formative years

As a father of 2, I have to agree with this.

There are many single parents who are not discriminated against for not having both sexes to be role models.
Why should a same sex parent model be treated any different.

Just my 2 cents.

Apogee wrote: »

The Adoption Board already screen applicants for suitability. They have ample experience in choosing what's in the best interest of the child.

Why is that stipulation required? Surely it would be better, for example, to give preference to a same-sex couple where one of the partners (e.g. uncle) has a blood relationship to the child, over an opposite-sex couple with no ties whatsoever to the child?

You are not really comparing like with like here.
The appropriate comparision would be a two sex couple one of whom is blood related and a same sex couple with one of whom is blood related.
then all other things being equal, it would be better to choose the two sex coupke for the simple reason that there are differences between men and women.

anymore wrote: »

You are not really comparing like with like here.

I never said I was comparing like with like. I was pointing out the possible implications of a myopic, sweeping precondition.

anymore wrote:

The appropriate comparision would be a two sex couple one of whom is blood related and a same sex couple with one of whom is blood related.
then all other things being equal, it would be better to choose the two sex coupke for the simple reason that there are differences between men and women.

Why not just leave it to staff of the Adoption Board to assess each case on it own merits, rather than hamstringing them with ill-conceived regulations?

Surely they have sufficient training, coupled with past experience and knowledge of current research, to enable them to make an informed decision in the best interests of the child?

Apogee wrote: »

I never said I was comparing like with like. I was pointing out the possible implications of a myopic, sweeping precondition.

Why not just leave it to staff of the Adoption Board to assess each case on it own merits, rather than hamstringing them with ill-conceived regulations?

Surely they have sufficient training, coupled with past experience and knowledge of current research, to enable them to make an informed decision in the best interests of the child?

At this stage, the idea of relying on irish government agencies is almost funny !:D
Irish bodies seem to be overly dependent on polticial Correctness.
So I suggest a dose of common sense would be preferable. My experience as a parent tells me that the best is when there is the combination of the perspectives of male and female, all other things being equal.

They will be under sufficient public scrutiny that they will invariably err on the side of caution in such cases.

In the cases where all other things are not equal, they should be free to make their decisions in the best interests of the child - a similar dose of common sense - rather than being railroaded by blanket rules borne out of particular convictions or prejudices.

Pride Fighter

Hope the mods do not mind me bumping this, but a huge milestone passed the Dail tonight

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0701/gay.html

The civil partnerships bill is a big step on the road for full equal rights for all in the LGBT community.

How did they pass a bill without a vote?

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

How did they pass a bill without a vote?

I'd have liked to have seen a vote, but I presume where support for legislation is so strong, there's a mechanism to pass it without a vote. Someone here might be able to elaborate on that mechanism, I'd be curious too.