Bishops have asked that our elected representatives follow a different road

thebigbiffo wrote: »

lads calm down, i'm trying to be as objective as possible here. i'm not suggesting that same sex parenting is wrong or leads to unhappy/unstable children or even that i'm against it, i'm just saying i dont know where i stand on it yet. my viewpoint on it at the moment is that the traditional mother/father upbringing provides input and influence from both sexes and that maybe this is the more natural way to bring up a kid.

i did say in my original post it was something that needed more debate and that's my only point. i've gay friends (i hate when people say that - i've also black friends ) and i've spoken about it with them to and they see the point i'm making. you can't just expect people who've had the 'traditional' upbringing to accept the idea overnight...i know nothing about same sex parenting ffs!!

i do totally accept same sex couples should have the same rights as married couples though...just so we're clear i dont bash homo's in my free time

edit: i dont want any f'uckin bishop involved in the debate either - just so we're back on point

I would prefer to see children brought up by a couple who love each other regardless of their sexual orientation. Once a child has love and feels safe, it should not matter who brings them up. Years ago if a man was homosexual the families way of dealing with this was to often make the teenager join the priesthood or the some other religious order. In the world today a man or woman has the right to express their sexuality openly without it being thought of as wrong. If my son or daughter came to me and told me in years to come that they were gay I would still tell them to happy in life and to meet someone they truly love. Once a loving relationship is there what does it matter?

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

I think a strong argument is that same sex couples, and children thereof, will never get the opportunity of being accepted as a normative unless some are willing to braek the mould first.

I do realise that playgrounds can be the cruellest of places for an kid, so I could only imagine what the child of a same sex couple may go through but the flip side is that a vote for the staus quo here is also a vote against progressing as a nation.

yep, it's a quare situation alright...

biffo made a funny *guffaws*

plein de force

they're entitled to their opinion

but please church stop interfering in society and people's lives for once and for all, it didn't work out the last time you were allowed did it?

dclane wrote: »

I would prefer to see children brought up by a couple who love each other regardless of their sexual orientation. Once a child has love and feels safe, it should not matter who brings them up. Years ago if a man was homosexual the families way of dealing with this was to often make the teenager join the priesthood or the some other religious order. In the world today a man or woman has the right to express their sexuality openly without it being thought of as wrong. If my son or daughter came to me and told me in years to come that they were gay I would still tell them to happy in life and to meet someone they truly love. Once a loving relationship is there what does it matter?

the world was made by a man and a woman raising a child together - the child had the influence of both sexes and it's been the way for time immemorial. this was the way of the world and i wouldn't be so quick to jump on the pc bandwagon until i know more about the pros and cons of same sex parenting.

i couldn't give a flying f'uck if my kids were gay either as long as they were happy - but that's not the point.

Banned Account

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the world was made by a man and a woman raising a child together.

Did you forget the apple and the snake, and then the fact that Incest must have been needed at some stage, and the fact that this story isn't true really?

Just an observation.

spider guardian

the bishops are entitled to their opinion but why RTE should give their views any more prominence over anyone else's is beyond me. no-one takes them seriously any more

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

I do realise that playgrounds can be the cruellest of places for an kid, so I could only imagine what the child of a same sex couple may go through

Kids will bully each other regardless. If it's not the "Your parents are gay" line, it's the "Your Mam is dead", "Your Dad is an alcoholic", "You were adopted","Your skin is black", "Your hair is ginger" or something else. Basically if they don't like you they'll find an excuse to ridicule you.
I think anyone who says they are against same sex couples adopting because they think the kids will be bullied over it is just using it as an excuse for their prejudices.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the world was made by a man and a woman raising a child together - the child had the influence of both sexes and it's been the way for time immemorial. this was the way of the world and i wouldn't be so quick to jump on the pc bandwagon until i know more about the pros and cons of same sex parenting.

i couldn't give a flying f'uck if my kids were gay either as long as they were happy - but that's not the point.

Ok! let me ask you another question.

Would you be happier for an adopted child to be raised in an Orphanage, Institution, Foster family for with a same sex couple?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I knew it wouldn't take long for this thread to get into the debate of same sex parenting V opposite sex parenting...

Now we just watch the thread go back and forth for the next 200+ posts before a mod locks it, as per usual. The debate is endless, it always will be. Didn't we just do this last week?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

dclane wrote: »

Ok! let me ask you another question.

Would you be happier for an adopted child to be raised in an Orphanage, Institution, Foster family for with a same sex couple?

Biased much?

dvpower

moonpurple wrote: »

they want a free vote where each TD takes a position individually on the civil partnership bill

Funny. The bishops seem to be quite narrowly focussed on what they call for free votes on. I can't ever remember them calling for a free vote on stuff like the minimum wage, budget cuts or similar issues of social justice.

Perhaps they should just advise their own flock to simply not avail of the bill when it becomes law.

The country's Catholic bishops have called on the Government to allow a free vote for all TDs and Senators on the Civil Partnership Bill which, they say, is unconstitutional.

They should probably take a legal case against it so.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the world was made by a man and a woman raising a child together - the child had the influence of both sexes and it's been the way for time immemorial. this was the way of the world and i wouldn't be so quick to jump on the pc bandwagon until i know more about the pros and cons of same sex parenting.

i couldn't give a flying f'uck if my kids were gay either as long as they were happy - but that's not the point.

From Medscape Medical News
Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children

"Oct. 13, 2005 (Washington) — An analysis of multiple studies of 500 households shows that rearing children in a same-sex household does not affect the their self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health, a Boston researcher reported.

"Pediatricians need to recognize that there are variations in families and learn what kind of advice to give them to optimize the child's development," said Ellen Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.

The researcher and colleagues looked at data from 15 studies evaluating possible stigma, teasing, social isolation, adjustment, sexual orientation, and strengths. The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition.

"The vast consensus of the studies is that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," Dr. Perrin said. "In some ways, children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

It has been estimated that one to six million children are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples in this country. Some children were born to a heterosexual couple and later raised by a same-sex couple; others were placed in foster homes, were adopted, or conceived through a surrogate mother through artificial insemination.

Previous studies of same-sex parenting have been criticized for being biased, but Dr. Perrin said the research team was extremely careful to select only solid, evidence-based research for review.

Based on nine studies from 1981 to 1994 of 260 children, aged three to 11 years, reared by either heterosexual mothers or same sex-mothers after divorce, the researchers found there was no difference in intelligence of the children, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, or parental stress. "The children all had a similar emotional experiences with divorce," she said.

What they did find was that after divorce children being reared by lesbian mothers had more contact with fathers than children reared by divorced heterosexual mothers, Dr. Perrin said. "There are interesting suggestions that these children are more tolerant of differences."

A separate longitudinal study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and an equal number of children with divorced heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships.

"What is exciting about this study was that they followed the children 11 years later when they became adults," Dr. Perrin said. "But they still found no difference in adjustment, self-esteem, psychiatric or psychological problems, family relationships, or in identifying sexual orientation."

Four other large studies of more than 100 couples that evaluated children either born or adopted into families found that same-sex parents were more likely to have contact with extended family for social support as well as a more equal division of labor in the home. However, children of same-sex parents did experience some stigmatization.

"The researchers found no differences in the parents other than that lesbian couples share household and child care tasks more equitably," said Dr. Perrin. "The children of lesbian couples also appeared to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous," playing with toys for both boys and girls.

A further analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health used randomly selected representative data from 44 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. The study compared children living with two women in a "marriage-like" relationship to teenagers living with two heterosexual parents.

The study showed that the adolescents were similar in intrapersonal adjustments such as self-esteem, depression, and anxiety. They also were similar in school success, family relationships, and neighborhood integration, Dr. Perrin said.

"What is striking is that there are very consistent findings in these studies," she concluded. "But further study conducted in a long-term systematic manner in community samples needs to be conducted."

Dr. Perrin pointed out that "as pediatricians we have a lot of different kinds of roles. We need to be extremely careful about confidentiality with these families and assure them that their family constellation won't be broadcast. This will give us a better chance of learning more about the family and providing needed advice and discussing some of the issues."

"This is valuable information," Carol Berkowitz, MD, told Medscape. She is the immediate past president of the AAP and professor and executive vice chair in the Department of Pediatrics at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California. "This subject evokes a lot of emotions that have influenced some studies. Some studies in the past were weighted based on nothing more than their own views."

The value of this presentation is these are all evidence-based studies, Dr. Berkowitz said, adding this information will help pediatricians in their practices and for setting policy.

AAP 2005 National Conference and Exhibition: Concurrent Seminar F340. Presented Oct. 10, 2005."

Sanjuro

Five words that need to be taken absolutely seriously-

Separation of church and state.

Sanjuro wrote: »

Five words that need to be taken absolutely seriously-

Separation of church and state.

Maybe we need to ad two more?

COMPLETE separation of church and state - SERIOUSLY.

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Did you forget the apple and the snake, and then the fact that Incest must have been needed at some stage, and the fact that this story isn't true really?

Just an observation.

i'm an athiest, i dont think you got what i was saying

dclane wrote: »

Ok! let me ask you another question.

Would you be happier for an adopted child to be raised in an Orphanage, Institution, Foster family for with a same sex couple?

same sex couple, lesser of evils. what i'd actually prefer is that there was no need for any of the above.

look, i'm out of this debate. i only voiced an opinion about an issue which i really dont care too much about and i dont want to get dragged into having to debate the no side. as stated earlier, i'm firmly on the fence and have yet to be convinced.

read the study above, seems ok but i still can't help being a bit conservative here - if that makes me some kind of villian, so be it

Trashbat

funny that alot of people are saying that they are entitled to their opinion.

This is true, but its not the issue at hand here, not by a mile. The main point is that they are trying to influence the democratic process. They are not entitled to do that.

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but trying to influence people on a matter that they have nothing to do with is very different to simply expressing opinion.

Trashbat wrote: »

funny that alot of people are saying that they are entitled to their opinion.

This is true, but its not the issue at hand here, not by a mile. The main point is that they are trying to influence the democratic process. They are not entitled to do that.

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but trying to influence people on a matter that they have nothing to do with is very different to simply expressing opinion.

i've no love for the church but...

this isn't the point - they are entitled to lobby the government on behalf of the people they represent. they're a big club - the f'uckers - and it's precisely because we live in a democracy that they can press for the views of the people they represent. ffs though, if joe duffy can influence policy the church shouldnt have too hard a time sorting this out

derfderf

@thebig biffo.
Wasn't making out u were a homophobe, I just don't like the whole stepping stone argument.
You're probably are right in that it will bring the same sex adoption issue to a head, but that has to happen some time.
In the same way decriminalising homosexuality was the first stepping stone to same sex adoption, but i'm sure you'd agree people that had a problem with that because of what it could lead to were in the wrong.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i'm an athiest, i dont think you got what i was saying

same sex couple, lesser of evils. what i'd actually prefer is that there was no need for any of the above.

look, i'm out of this debate. i only voiced an opinion about an issue which i really dont care too much about and i dont want to get dragged into having to debate the no side. as stated earlier, i'm firmly on the fence and have yet to be convinced.

read the study above, seems ok but i still can't help being a bit conservative here - if that makes me some kind of villian, so be it

I think it's fair to have the opinion that you have, I had a good long think about it and tbh there is still a slight reservation with me also but in the grander scheme of things I look at the way society has evolved over the years and maybe this is just something that will take getting used to.

ToxicPaddy

Let them express their opinion and lobby the government, the fact that they don't have the backing of probably the majority of Ireland due to their handling of recent scandals, thus the majority of the voters will mean that chances are the TD's will listen to their bread and butter, the people who put them in power, the voters and not the church.

As someone said, if its unconstitutional, then let them go through the courts to challenge it.

My personal opinion is that if a same sex couple wish to adopt a child and bring that child into a decent loving home where the child has a chance of a good upbringing and support structure, then so be it.

If they check all the boxes that any other couple check, why not?

Its better than a child growing up feeling unloved and unwanted in some under funded, under staffed institution and not having a chance in life.

Trashbat

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i've no love for the church but...

this isn't the point - they are entitled to lobby the government on behalf of the people they represent. they're a big club - the f'uckers - and it's precisely because we live in a democracy that they can press for the views of the people they represent. ffs though, if joe duffy can influence policy the church shouldnt have too hard a time sorting this out

The Church doesn't operate that way though. Clubs, Lobby groups, Organisations et al generally get their policies from them members. The church operates in the exact polar opposite way. And funnily enough, the majority of people who tick "Catholic" on the census form do not subscribe to all the teachings of the chuch.

Furthermore, campaign groups are generally geared towards a general target of achievement. This is why people join. People join the church because of belief in the theological idea they are preaching (ideally), not because of political issues. It is not fair for the church to assume the right to interfere in polititical matters that have NO EFFECT on their teachings or ideologies under the banner of being representatives of a group of people they have not consulted on the matter.

If the church wanted to campaign on such an issue, they should consult their members democratically, set up a very clear sub-group that only represents the people who actively choose to support it and make it clear to the media and the people of Ireland exactly how much support they have. But they won't do this, because it would show them up to be backward, unpopular and hate filled.

PeterIanStaker

The church is not, nor has it ever been, democratic. It does not consult its members, it dictates to them.

I'm sure every church in the state will have something to say about this at Sunday service. For those who still go to mass (and no offense intended) I think the church has absolutely no right to interfere with a civil matter. The last time the church was given authority to help children and families, they tore some families apart. Children were battered, abused, raped. Pregnant girls were thrown into laundries and their children given to the highest bidder. Parents had little say, the church told people to not use contraception and this played a major part in the spread of aids and unwanted children and large family units where children suffered as a result of poverty, hunger and disease.

As the previous poster mentioned, if a same sex couple ticks all the boxes then they should be considered like anybody else.

Trashbat wrote: »

The Church doesn't operate that way though. Clubs, Lobby groups, Organisations et al generally get their policies from them members. The church operates in the exact polar opposite way. And funnily enough, the majority of people who tick "Catholic" on the census form do not subscribe to all the teachings of the chuch.

Furthermore, campaign groups are generally geared towards a general target of achievement. This is why people join. People join the church because of belief in the theological idea they are preaching (ideally), not because of political issues. It is not fair for the church to assume the right to interfere in polititical matters that have NO EFFECT on their teachings or ideologies under the banner of being representatives of a group of people they have not consulted on the matter.

If the church wanted to campaign on such an issue, they should consult their members democratically, set up a very clear sub-group that only represents the people who actively choose to support it and make it clear to the media and the people of Ireland exactly how much support they have. But they won't do this, because it would show them up to be backward, unpopular and hate filled.

i agree with everything you've said but they are a group that speaks for their members regardless of who dictates policy, therefore, in a democratic society, they can lobby the government.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i agree with everything you've said but they are a group that speaks for their members regardless of who dictates policy, therefore, in a democratic society, they can lobby the government.

This is true. Thankfully democracy works both ways. Sane people can counter lobby their BS.

dvpower

John Gormely is on radio1 now basically telling the church to mind their own business.

Trashbat wrote: »

And funnily enough, the majority of people who tick "Catholic" on the census form do not subscribe to all the teachings of the chuch.

None of the 'Catholics' I know (and there are lots of them) believe in transubstanciation, the immaculate conception or Papal Infalibility, y'know the 3 cornerstone rules of Catholocism. Heck, some of them arent even convinced Jesus was real. Surely you must believe in Jesus to be Christian let alone Catholic?!

Up de Barrs

Trashbat wrote: »

funny that alot of people are saying that they are entitled to their opinion.

This is true, but its not the issue at hand here, not by a mile. The main point is that they are trying to influence the democratic process. They are not entitled to do that.

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but trying to influence people on a matter that they have nothing to do with is very different to simply expressing opinion.

Of course they are entitled to influence the democratic process with their argument, if it stand ups. I'm entitled to contact my TD and put my view forward. They are similarly entitled to influence the democratic outcome. If anything their intervention will heighten the debate and hopefully result in greater support for the bill. Personally I would support gay marriage and I think its only a matter of time before it happens. Thankfully the Church wont be able to stop it, but they are entitled to argue against it.

Banned Account

dvpower wrote: »

John Gormely is on radio1 now basically telling the church to mind their own business.

Wish he'd practice what he's preaching - cnut.