Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…1718202223…218

Comments

  • #572
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,054 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    That's just being ridiculous especially considering that the concept of same-sex "marriage" didn't exist when they were written and a number of them mention specifically the roles of mothers and fathers, and in the case of the ones that show that biological parents are best they mention that explicitly.

    And you're claiming I'm disingenuous?
    I'm not claiming they're saying something that they're not
    philologos wrote: »
    They very clearly show that fathers and mothers have unique influences in respect to their children. Unless, you're interested in ignoring and fobbing off the reality of that research I can't see much further we can go with this.
    Post your evidence "again". The last time you posted it, you were shown it doesn't say anything like you claim bby numerous posters
    philologos wrote: »
    Even if you dispute that, there's still the huge body of evidence that suggests that kids are better off with their biological parents.
    You haven't been challenged on this, yet you continually post about it as if it somehow has any bearing on the topic at hand, because it's the only conclusion you have that actually has any weight behind it

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #573
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    Why do keep diverting to biological parenting when questioned about same-sex adoption vs. mother+father adoption?

    I'm not "diverting" to it. I've covered both on this thread already.

    I'm discussing my reasons as to why I think marriage should be left as is, not explicitly to adoption. But, even in the case of adoption - complaining that referring to studies about mother and father roles in respect to children is a bad argument is silly.

    If is it is true that fathers and mothers are uniquely and differently beneficial to their children, then it logically follows that the same benefit cannot be the case in the event that any one of these is replaced by one of the same gender.

    Also, I've said that it should be permissible for civil partners to adopt, but with consideration for the best interest of the child. Much in the same way, single people can adopt.

    That's simple logic.
    28064212 wrote: »
    Post your evidence "again". The last time you posted it, you were shown it doesn't say anything like you claim bby numerous posters

    I've done so in this thread. Look back for it.
    28064212 wrote: »
    You haven't been challenged on this, yet you continually post about it as if it somehow has any bearing on the topic at hand, because it's the only conclusion you have that actually has any weight behind it

    Biological parents and their benefit very clearly do have a bearing on the same-sex marriage debate. So do parental gender roles in child development.


  • #574
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,054 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    I've done so in this thread. Look back for it.
    I've looked. Both here and in the A&A thread. And your conclusions do not correspond to what the research actually says, and you've been called on this and you haven't responded to the glaring holes in your arguments
    philologos wrote: »
    It has a bearing on the same-sex marriage debate certainly.
    No it doesn't. It has a bearing on the "sterile" marriage debate, which is a completely different argument, and if you want to go set up a thread that says all couples incapable of producing children shouldn't be able to get married, go ahead.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #575
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    philologos wrote: »
    complaining that referring to studies about mother and father roles in respect to children is a bad argument is silly.

    It is a bad argument if you're not comparing like with like. Yes the studies show that children who stay with their biological parents have, statistically speaking, better chances than adoptive children. But it does not follow that this means father+mother > mother/mother or father/father. To properly investigate this you must look at both heterosexual adoptive patents vs homosexual adoptive parents and also, separately, heterosexual biological patents vs homosexual biological parents. Granted the amount of research done comparing the above scenarios is limited however the consensus of these studies is there is no intrinsic difference when you compare like with like .


  • #576
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    So why is it better for an adopted child to be placed with a hereto couple instead of a same sex couple, Philo?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #577
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    It is a bad argument if you're not comparing like with like. Yes the studies show that children who stay with their biological parents have, statistically speaking, better chances than adoptive children. But it does not follow that this means father+mother > mother/mother or father/father. To properly investigate this you must look at both heterosexual adoptive patents vs homosexual adoptive parents and also, separately, heterosexual biological patents vs homosexual biological parents. Granted the amount of research done comparing the above scenarios is limited however the consensus of these studies is there is no intrinsic difference when you compare like with like .

    You've not read what I've actually posted. There's two reasons I've given.

    1) A civil partnership is different because it cannot provide a child with its biological parents.
    2) A civil partnership is different because it cannot provide a child with a mother or a father (irrespective of whether or not they are their biological parents).

    I've presented a overview of the studies that there are on gender roles on this thread (applies to argument 2 as well as 1).

    I've also presented several overviews of studies on the advantages of biological parents.

    Both are applicable in this argument. Please read my posts before posting.
    koth wrote: »
    So why is it better for an adopted child to be placed with a hereto couple instead of a same sex couple, Philo?

    All you have to do is read what I've posted several times already on this thread. It's getting just a little frustrating when people have ignored what I've already posted :)

    I'm starting to think that some people are more interested in being intransigent than actually listening to what people have to post.
    28064212 wrote: »
    I've looked. Both here and in the A&A thread. And your conclusions do not correspond to what the research actually says, and you've been called on this and you haven't responded to the glaring holes in your arguments

    There aren't much glaring holes as far as I can tell. What holes I have seen on this thread are people ignoring what people have actually said thus far, and repeating themselves ad-nauseum. This isn't going to be much good for an actual discussion on the issue.
    28064212 wrote: »
    No it doesn't. It has a bearing on the "sterile" marriage debate, which is a completely different argument, and if you want to go set up a thread that says all couples incapable of producing children shouldn't be able to get married, go ahead.

    Yes, if I hadn't presented anything that suggests that mothers and fathers benefit children in unique ways, I'd agree. But I have, and you've ignored these posts routinely in this thread so far.

    Like what I said to koth, if people are going to be intransigent and not listen to what people are actually saying, then there's little to no point in continuing is there?

    So at this juncture, I'm off to do things, and I'll check this later. It'd be completely wrong not to get out in the sunshine. :)


  • #578
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,054 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    You've not read what I've actually posted. There's two reasons I've given.

    1) A civil partnership is different because it cannot provide a child with its biological parents.
    2) A civil partnership is different because it cannot provide a child with a mother or a father (irrespective of whether or not they are their biological parents).
    Only point two is in any way relevant to the issue of gay marriage
    philologos wrote: »
    Yes, if I hadn't presented anything that suggests that mothers and fathers benefit children in unique ways, I'd agree. But I have, and you've ignored these posts routinely in this thread so far.
    Fine, let's say I've just missed them, in among your irrelevant studies about the advantages of biological parents over non-biological ones. Post up only the studies that state there is an advantage to having two parents of opposite gender over two parents of the same gender.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #579
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭Wiggles88


    philologos wrote: »
    You've not read what I've actually posted. There's two reasons I've given.

    1) A civil partnership is different because it cannot provide a child with its biological parents.
    2) A civil partnership is different because it cannot provide a child with a mother or a father (irrespective of whether or not they are their biological parents).

    Regarding point 1, there are many heterosexual parents who cannot provide a child with its biological parents yet no one is disputing their marriage, this is a terribly weak argument.

    Regarding point 2, I am not disputing that homosexual parents will lack either a mother or father, I am pointing out that there is no evidence that a parenting dynamic with a mother and father is inherently better than a parenting dynamic with both fathers/mothers (for a like for like situation).

    I've also presented several overviews of studies on the advantages of biological parents.

    Yes but the way you presented it was slightly misleading, you stated these as if they were showing that heterosexual parents are better, when in fact all these studies relate to is biological vs adoptive parents (again if you wish to look at hetero vs homosexual parents properly you have to look at like for like situations)


  • #580
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    If is it is true that fathers and mothers are uniquely and differently beneficial to their children, then it logically follows that the same benefit cannot be the case in the event that any one of these is replaced by one of the same gender

    OK, let's accept your premise that Mums and Dads are uniquely and differently beneficial to a child (I don't accept this but there appears to be little point in arguing with you about it as you refuse to accept the mountains of evidence thrown at you).

    So a Mum and a Dad are unique and differently beneficial. Yes, it logically follows that replacing one with the opposite gender will change the dynamic, change the array of benefits on offer. It in no way logically follows that the new dynamic is at all detrimental.

    Are you ignoring the fact that parents do not act separately when raising a child? How the parents bring up a child together is, in my opinion, far more important (and that applies to parents that are together or separated). If we delve into speculation, I'll wager that the children of same sex parents tend to be more mindful of the importance of equality than are children raised by heterosexual parents - in case you haven't realised, most of us think that's a good thing.


  • #581
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    Biological parents and their benefit very clearly do have a bearing on the same-sex marriage debate. So do parental gender roles in child development.
    Phil it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that biological parents vs adoptive parents is not the same as gay vs straight parents, nor does the fact that different genders are different require that both genders are needed to raise a child.
    The research you are supposedly quoting does not support the idea you are claiming: that straight parents are better than gay parents.

    In fact you have been provided with an extensive list of research that actually do compare gay vs straight parents (which your research does not do) and statements by organisations who deal with this matter.
    All of which completely disprove your stance.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80057485&postcount=624
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79982194#post79982194

    But of course you have ignored all of this completely and continue on as if you have never read any of the points made against you.

    So why do you persist in saying that adoptive parents are not as successful as if it showed that gay adoptive parents where worse off that straight ones?
    Why do you ignore the cases of biological gay parents?
    What do you think of the plethora of research that actually compares gay and straight parents and finds no difference?
    Why do every major organisation state that there is no difference supported by scientific study?

    And why do you refuse to acknowledge these points?


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Here's a post that I provided earlier which links to a study that provides criticism of the 2005 APA study on same-sex parenting:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80006663

    The reality is, that the claim that a woman can replace a father, and vice versa is contested to say the least. The New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas at Austin also provides a different perspective on this issue. Simply put, there is disagreement on this issue.

    My point is really simple. In addition there are a large number of studies over the last 30 years that look into the unique and beneficial roles that a father and a mother have in respect to their children. It is contradictory to claim that a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father if the former is true. See my previous post here.


  • #583
    Dennis Lively Gypsum
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dennis Lively Gypsum


    philologos wrote: »
    There are a large number of studies that look into...

    You keep saying "look into". I could say there are a large number of studies that "look into" the earth being flat. It doesn't mean they conclude that it is. And similarly, these don't conclude what you're implying they do either.


  • #584
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    bluewolf wrote: »
    You keep saying "look into". I could say there are a large number of studies that "look into" the earth being flat. It doesn't mean they conclude that it is. And similarly, these don't conclude what you're implying they do either.

    They conclude on the basis of evidence that there are clear and unique benefits to being raised with a mother and a father in the vast majority of cases.

    My point is actually really simple. It isn't by any means uncontested that there is no difference between a same-sex relationship and a heterosexual one as a context for raising children and it's clearly not true to claim such.


  • #585
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    Here's a post that I provided earlier which links to a study that provides criticism of the 2005 APA study on same-sex parenting:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80006663

    The reality is, that the claim that a woman can replace a father, and vice versa is contested to say the least. The New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas at Austin also provides a different perspective on this issue. Simply put, there is disagreement on this issue.

    My point is really simple. In addition there are a large number of studies over the last 30 years that look into the unique and beneficial roles that a father and a mother have in respect to their children. It is contradictory to claim that a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father if the former is true.

    The reality is the State is denying legal recognition to non-biological parents when that parent shares the gender of the legally recognised parent but when the non-biological parent is of the opposite gender it allows for them to be legally recognised as a parent.

    Sexual orientation being the only difference. That is discrimination. Pure and simple.


  • #586
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    Here's a post that I provided earlier which links to a study that provides criticism of the 2005 APA study on same-sex parenting:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80006663

    The reality is, that the claim that a woman can replace a father, and vice versa is contested to say the least. The New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas at Austin also provides a different perspective on this issue. Simply put, there is disagreement on this issue.

    My point is really simple. In addition there are a large number of studies over the last 30 years that look into the unique and beneficial roles that a father and a mother have in respect to their children. It is contradictory to claim that a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father if the former is true. See my previous post here.
    This is a complete and dishonest dodge of the questions posed to you.

    You are not providing studies that compare gay and straight couples in comparable circumstances.
    Any study other than this cannot be used to conclude on the issue of gay vs straight parents.

    Please actually address this point (and the other points posed to you) and stop ignoring it.


  • #587
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob wrote: »
    Phil it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that biological parents vs adoptive parents is not the same as gay vs straight parents, nor does the fact that different genders are different require that both genders are needed to raise a child.
    The research you are supposedly quoting does not support the idea you are claiming: that straight parents are better than gay parents.

    In fact you have been provided with an extensive list of research that actually do compare gay vs straight parents (which your research does not do) and statements by organisations who deal with this matter.
    All of which completely disprove your stance.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80057485&postcount=624
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79982194#post79982194

    But of course you have ignored all of this completely and continue on as if you have never read any of the points made against you.

    So why do you persist in saying that adoptive parents are not as successful as if it showed that gay adoptive parents where worse off that straight ones?
    Why do you ignore the cases of biological gay parents?
    What do you think of the plethora of research that actually compares gay and straight parents and finds no difference?
    Why do every major organisation state that there is no difference supported by scientific study?

    And why do you refuse to acknowledge these points?

    I refuse to acknowledge the point because there is a genuine debate about this subject, and not all are by any means agreed that there is no difference. It also contradicts an extensive amount of research into gender roles in child development.

    It isn't "every major organisation". That's not true. Although I guess it depends on how you want to identify "major" :)

    I persist because there is evidence to show the contrary.

    That's not ignoring your point, and neither is presenting any more material to support the case.

    It's logically valid to point to studies on gender roles in child development on this issue, whether you like that or not I'm afraid.


  • #588
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The reality is the State is denying legal recognition to non-biological parents when that parent shares the gender of the legally recognised parent but when the non-biological parent is of the opposite gender it allows for them to be legally recognised as a parent.

    Sexual orientation being the only difference. That is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    I actually think this could be classed as gender discrimination? The discrimination against the sexuality of the non-biological parent is as a result of the perception that they are the 'wrong' gender for that sexuality. I wonder, if framed as such, less people would be willing to advocate inequality? (Assuming some people are less willing to discriminate on gender than sexuality).


  • #589
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The reality is the State is denying legal recognition to non-biological parents when that parent shares the gender of the legally recognised parent but when the non-biological parent is of the opposite gender it allows for them to be legally recognised as a parent.

    Sexual orientation being the only difference. That is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    Again, I don't know why you're posting this to me. I think the State should recognise other family structures, but as distinct to marriage if they differ to marriage. It's up to the Irish Government to legislate on that issue though and for people living in Ireland to challenge them on it.

    I also have no issue with civil partners being considered for adoption, whilst also considering the best interests of the child.

    Preferrably I think there should be more done to facilitate that as many children as possible remain with their biological parents in a stable marriage though.


  • #590
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    I refuse to acknowledge the point because there is a genuine debate about this subject, and not all are by any means agreed that there is no difference. It also contradicts an extensive amount of research into gender roles in child development.

    It isn't "every major organisation". That's not true.

    I persist because there is evidence to show the contrary.

    That's not ignoring your point, and neither is presenting any more material to support the case.
    It very much is ignoring my points.
    First, you have totally dodged the point that you studies you are clinging to do not compare gay vs straight parents in comparable circumstances.
    I want you to either acknowledge this fact or prove otherwise because you keep pretending that those studies do.

    Second, even if the studies you provide do show there are definite gender roles, they do not show that both genders are required or show there is a benefit to having both genders. You have not addressed this point.

    Thrid. I have reposted a list of studies posted to you that contain studies that actually do compare gay vs straight parents. None of them argee with you. You have not addressed any of that.

    Fourth. I also reposted a list of organisations that are relevant to the research of this topic, and again, none of them agree with you. You have not addressed this point. There is still "debate" about evolution and global warming.
    Please provide us with a statement from one comparable major organisation that agrees with your stance. (And by this I mean one national or global organisation that deals with psychological or developmental professionals or research.)

    And of course this is just the points about the science and research you've been ignoring and dodging. There's quite a few about the legal issues you've left ignored on the other forum.


  • #591
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob wrote: »
    It very much is ignoring my points.
    First, you have totally dodged the point that you studies you are clinging to do not compare gay vs straight parents in comparable circumstances.
    I want you to either acknowledge this fact or prove otherwise because you keep pretending that those studies do.

    Second, even if the studies you provide do show there are definite gender roles, they do not show that both genders are required or show there is a benefit to having both genders. You have not addressed this point.

    Thrid. I have reposted a list of studies posted to you that contain studies that actually do compare gay vs straight parents. None of them argee with them. You have not addressed any of that.

    Fourth. I also reposted a list of organisations that are relevant to the research of this topic, and again, none of them agree with you. You have not addressed this point. There is still "debate" about evolution and global warming.
    Please provide us with a statement from one comparable major organisation that argees with your stance.

    And of course this is just the points about the science and research you've been ignoring and dodging. There's quite a few about the legal issues you've left ignored on the other forum.

    The studies that I have raised - have logical implications for determining if same-sex relationships are as beneficial. You seem to be ignoring the point that I've made quite a number of times already:
    If it can be shown that mothers and fathers have unique and beneficial roles in respect to their children in a large number of studies. Then logically it cannot be the case that a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father.

    If anything you've been ignoring that point.

    Also, you've ignored the point that the studies that you have presented, aren't uncontested. I've linked already to a study which criticises the APA's 2005 study on the basis of there not being a large enough sample compared and with coming up with claims that aren't substantiated.

    To quote this again:
    To restate, not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 23–45; see Table 1) compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.

    To claim that it is uncontested isn't true. That's my point pure and simple, and if you're going to continually ignoring what I'm actually arguing what's the point in continuing?

    By the by - not agreeing with what you're claiming, and ignoring it are different things also. You refuse to even consider the points that I've actually raised or the studies that I've raised on this issue. I've considered the points that you've made and simply said that it is contested, and there are differing opinions on this issue.

    I.E - It's nowhere near as conclusive as you claim it is.

    Edit: this is nothing like the evolution debate, it's based on peer reviewed research. It's dishonesty to claim that it isn't.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    The studies that I have raised - have logical implications for determining if same-sex relationships are as beneficial. You seem to be ignoring the point that I've made quite a number of times already:
    If it can be shown that mothers and fathers have unique and beneficial roles in respect to their children in a large number of studies. Then logically it cannot be the case that a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father.

    If anything you've been ignoring that point.

    This point has been addressed by numerous posters, myself included.

    Your logic is fine, but incomplete and it doesn't support your conclusion.

    I'll repeat: So a Mum and a Dad are unique and differently beneficial (accepting that, which I don't but nevermind). Yes, it logically follows that replacing one with the opposite gender will change the dynamic, change the array of benefits on offer. It in no way logically follows that the new dynamic is at all detrimental.


  • #593
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I'll repeat: So a Mum and a Dad are unique and differently beneficial (accepting that, which I don't but nevermind). Yes, it logically follows that replacing one with the opposite gender will change the dynamic, change the array of benefits on offer. It in no way logically follows that the new dynamic is at all detrimental.

    The child is missing out on the unique benefit of having a mother and a father. For the record, I'm not arguing that LGBT people can't raise children. What I am arguing is that that structure is not equally beneficial to children.

    If I believed it was all detrimental, I'd be opposed to civil partners adopting.

    My point in this thread is to explain how a heterosexual relationship differs from an LGBT one.


  • #594
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    doctoremma wrote: »
    This point has been addressed by numerous posters, myself included.

    Your logic is fine, but incomplete and it doesn't support your conclusion.

    I'll repeat: So a Mum and a Dad are unique and differently beneficial (accepting that, which I don't but nevermind). Yes, it logically follows that replacing one with the opposite gender will change the dynamic, change the array of benefits on offer. It in no way logically follows that the new dynamic is at all detrimental

    or to put it in soundbite form : same-gender parenting = Different but Equal.


  • #595
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    The studies that I have raised - have logical implications for determining if same-sex relationships are as beneficial. You seem to be ignoring the point that I've made quite a number of times already:
    If it can be shown that mothers and fathers have unique and beneficial roles in respect to their children in a large number of studies. Then logically it cannot be the case that a man can replace a mother, and a woman replace a father.

    If anything you've been ignoring that point.
    No it is not logical to assume that.
    Even if it is shown that men and women fill different roles it does not mean that the benefits of those roles cannot exist in same sex parents.

    The only way to determine whether or not there is a deficit to having same sex parents is to compare same sex parents with straight parents.
    The point you are ignoring is that your studies do not do this. Your studies do not compare like for like. Again please either acknowledge this point, or show otherwise. If you do not, you are again ignoring it.
    philologos wrote: »
    Also, you've ignored the point that the studies that you have presented, aren't uncontested. I've linked already to a study which criticises the APA's 2005 study on the basis of there not being a large enough sample compared and with coming up with claims that aren't substantiated.
    So that's one study that is criticised. There was a list of a dozen or so studies.
    Can you provide any study that directly compares same sex and hetero couples in similar circumstances and finds that hetero couples out perform the same sex ones?
    philologos wrote: »
    To claim that it is uncontested isn't true. That's my point pure and simple, and if you're going to continually ignoring what I'm actually arguing. What's the point in continuing?
    Again, one study(or a criticism of one study) does not a point make.
    This is assuming that the criticism holds of course.

    Nor does this counter the overwhelming consensus against your stance.

    As I have pointed out, there is an equal amount of "debate" against the consensus of evolution and global warming.
    philologos wrote: »
    By the by - not agreeing with what you're claiming, and ignoring it are different things also. You refuse to even consider the points that I've actually raised or the studies that I've raised on this issue. I've considered the points that you've made and simply said that it is contested, and there are differing opinions on this issue.

    I.E - It's nowhere near as conclusive as you claim it is.
    No, not actually addressing points is ignoring them I'm afraid.
    Just insisting that you point is right does not equal addressing them, it's ignoring them.

    And I have not considered your studies because they are not actually relevant to the discussion, you are only twisting them and sspining them to be.
    Studies that show adopted kids do not fair as well as non adopted kids does not show that the kids of gay parents do not fair as well as the kids of straight parents.
    Studies that show there are different gender roles do not show that either.

    The only type of study that shows that would be one that compares straight couples with gay ones.
    But then no such studies actually show what you want them to show, hence why you have to twist other ones.


  • #596
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    The child is missing out on the unique benefit of having a mother and a father. For the record, I'm not arguing that LGBT people can't raise children. What I am arguing is that that structure is not equally beneficial to children.

    If I believed it was all detrimental, I'd be opposed to civil partners adopting.

    My point in this thread is to explain how a heterosexual relationship differs from an LGBT one.
    Lol so you believe that straight couples are better than gay ones, but you don't think that gays ones are worse than straight one?

    If you are arguing that straight couples are more beneficial that logically must mean you think that gay couples are not as good as straight couples. You can't have it both ways.

    But if you are not pretending that you are not opposed to gay couples adopting, why are you opposed to gay marriage?


  • #597
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Mob wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    The child is missing out on the unique benefit of having a mother and a father. For the record, I'm not arguing that LGBT people can't raise children. What I am arguing is that that structure is not equally beneficial to children.

    If I believed it was all detrimental, I'd be opposed to civil partners adopting.

    My point in this thread is to explain how a heterosexual relationship differs from an LGBT one.
    Lol so you believe that straight couples are better than gay ones, but you don't think that gays ones are worse than straight one?

    If you are arguing that straight couples are more beneficial that logically must mean you think that gay couples are not as good as straight couples. You can't have it both ways.

    But if you are not pretending that you are not opposed to gay couples adopting, why are you opposed to gay marriage?

    I'm not pretending. I think the Irish Government should consider them for adoption as they do here in the UK. First preference should be given to married couples - a man and a woman in a stable relationship. Marriage is better even than cohabitation or single parenting statistically. So it's not solely about LGBT relationships.

    Simply put the union between a man and a woman is different to a same sex relationship.

    Same sex relationships can't benefit a child in the same way. Children can be raised in that context and be fine, but marriage is better precisely because of the difference both mum and dad make on average on a child's life.

    I'm saying heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different and should be recognised differently.


  • #598
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The reality is the State is denying legal recognition to non-biological parents when that parent shares the gender of the legally recognised parent but when the non-biological parent is of the opposite gender it allows for them to be legally recognised as a parent.

    Sexual orientation being the only difference. That is discrimination. Pure and simple.

    In addition to this, the State has no concerns about the quality of parenting offered by same sex couples. There are many same-sex couples on the HSE's panel of foster parents, and the HSE has advertised in local gay press, looking for foster parents, on a number of occasions.

    Or, to use the words of the then Minister for Children and Youth Affairs during a Seanad debate on the Adoption Bill 2009:
    Gay men and lesbians make very good parents. It must be made clear they always have and always will. We must also acknowledge that many same-sex couples foster children. They are entrusted to them by the State through the Health Service Executive proving the State does not have any set view on this matter. The argument that same-sex couples cannot be good parents is contrary to the case.


  • #599
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Why are theists still trying to define a civil matter using religious criteria? Civil marriage is not a religious issue, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. I'm not sure why you continue to present marriage is something unique to religion, that only be defined by religious standards.


  • #600
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And ignoring more points again....
    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not pretending. I think the Irish Government should consider them for adoption as they do here in the UK. First preference should be given to married couples - a man and a woman in a stable relationship.
    Why? What evidence do you have that specifically shows by comparing like for like that straight couples are better?
    philologos wrote: »
    Marriage is better even than cohabitation or single parenting statistically. So it's not solely about LGBT relationships.
    Again, show evidence for this claim.
    philologos wrote: »
    Simply put the union between a man and a woman is different to a same sex relationship.

    Same sex relationships can't benefit a child in the same way. Children can be raised in that context and be fine, but marriage is better precisely because of the difference both mum and dad make on average on a child's life.

    I'm saying heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different and should be recognised differently.
    Again you are saying that same sex parents aren't worse than straight ones. But straight ones are better.
    Leaving aside that you've nothing to support this, it does not make any sense.
    If you are claiming that straight parents provide a benefit over gay parents, this means that straight parents are better than gay parents. And if one is better than the other this mean by basic logic, that one is worse than the other.
    We all realise that different things are different phil, but different does not make one better than the other automatically. And as we are taught by every after school special, because something is different, there's no reason to treat it differently.

    But then if your only concern is the difference between cohabitation and marriage, then you should support gay marriage as it provides a more stable situation for adoptive children.


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    philologos wrote: »

    I'm saying heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different and should be recognised differently.

    But they're not.

    This has been shown to you countless times, both with the studies you asked us to link, as well as the direct testimony from the children of homosexual couples, and homosexuals themselves.

    You're basically going for the 'head in the sand' technique, fingers plugged firmly inside your ears going 'lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala' and just obviously ignoring the direct facts and opinions which are attempting to correct you. It's become apparent you'll stick to this opinion, and when the last poster here as given simply stopped bothering to respond to you because they know it's a waste of time, you'll simply claim some form of victory.


Advertisement