Fidelma Healy Eames at it again. Claims SSM might mean that Mother's Day is banned!

sup_dude wrote: »

Why do you keep saying "not rocket science" when you're in the wrong?

How am I wrong ? explain the other changes then if redefining marriage has only 1 effect do tell us all why the huge list of changes to the family are coming down the line. This should be good.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No I said marriage/the family. Redefining marriage will have a knock on effect of changing the current unit used in family law. Hence the other changes in the Family. The current family unit is integral to Family law.

And we are telling you it won't due to the Children and Family Relationship Bill that's being passed before the referendum even happens, regardless of the referendum's votes. I'd strongly suggest you look it up. The referendum has nothing to do with it.

anothernight

reprise wrote: »

Should a married couple not be considered more suitable to adopt than an unmarried couple or a single person?

If getting married turns parents into the abusive asshole that I had as a (biological, married, Christian) father, I hope everyone has children out of wedlock.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

:pac: Really. It's not just like changing one part of the constitution. The family and Marriage are integral parts of it. All of our family law is based on the unit currently in the constitution. Not rocket science. And trying to shout people down with primary school level insults is pretty funny thanks for the laugh.

Well thank you also for a slightly better filled reason why it will be a long process (which I knew), but you're still making it no more clear as to why you think it shouldn't change. All I can take from what you are saying is that it will be difficult. Ok. But it has to happen if we the people decide that the definition of marriage should now be regardless of sex.

So what is your actual argument? Changing it will be difficult, so we shouldn't change it? Or changing it will be difficult, but we can change it if we want to. It can only be one of the two.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How am I wrong ? explain the other changes then if redefining marriage has only 1 effect do tell us all why the huge list of changes to the family are coming down the line. This should be good.

It already has been explained. Those changes will happen through the Children and Family Relationship Bill, regardless of the referendum. The referendum will not change anything because those changes will already be in place.

ohnonotgmail

reprise wrote: »

It really isn't. Please rely on my stated position rather than assume one for me.

reprise wrote: »

Why does it have to?

Should a married couple not be considered more suitable to adopt than an unmarried couple or a single person?

The implication is quite clear. Educate us on what you are actually saying. I'm intrigued.

sup_dude wrote: »

And we are telling you it won't due to the Children and Family Relationship Bill that's being passed before the referendum even happens, regardless of the referendum's votes. I'd strongly suggest you look it up. The referendum has nothing to do with it.

If that was even remotely true then what's the need to change the Family ? I suggest other people look up why it's needed to be changed due to the redefining of marriage in the constitution... Think people are stuck in a loop with there own agendas. I will be voting yes btw.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

If that was even remotely true then what's the need to change the Family ? I suggest other people look up why it's needed to be changed due to the redefining of marriage in the constitution... Think people are stuck in a loop with there own agendas. I will be voting yes btw.

The Bill address multiple family issues, not just gay adoption.

anothernight wrote: »

If getting married turns parents into the abusive asshole that I had as a (biological, married, Christian) father, I hope everyone has children out of wedlock.

Aint nothing any of us can do about our biological parents and I sympathise. However, I am discussing where prospective adoptive parent(s) are thoroughly assessed.

Roy Incalculable Bedtime wrote: »

For anyone interested in the actual effects of same-sex parenting:

Quoting from this thread:

Thanks for this again Roy Incalculable Bedtime. I had lost where oldrnwisr's most incredible piece of research was hiding. Quite literally the definitive article, I think, at least as far as boards goes.

sup_dude wrote: »

The Bill address multiple family issues, not just gay adoption.

Stop side stepping the issue. I have no problem with Gay adoption.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Stop side stepping the issue. I have no problem with Gay adoption.

I never said you did? I'm saying that you argument that SSM will change family is not valid due to this Bill.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The implication is quite clear. Educate us on what you are actually saying. I'm intrigued.

No, can't see any implication. Just what I wrote.

anothernight

reprise wrote: »

Aint nothing any of us can do about our biological parents and I sympathise. However, I am discussing where prospective adoptive parent(s) are thoroughly assessed.

So what difference is there between a 'thoroughly assessed' married couple and an unmarried couple? Why should the married couple be 'considered more suitable to adopt', as per your own post?

And what difference does that make to whether people should be allowed to marry who they love anyway? The SSM referendum isn't about adoption, and gay people can adopt.

sup_dude wrote: »

I never said you did? I'm saying that you argument that SSM will change family is not valid due to this Bill.

No, It's the chicken and the egg. You cannot change Marriage without changing the Family. If you could they would not have gone to the trouble of massively changing the family.

anothernight wrote: »

The SSM referendum isn't about adoption, and gay people can adopt.

People like to bring it up because it makes them feel as though they have an argument, even though they don't. Although, going by post history, reprise doesn't have an argument anyway and will latch onto anything and everything that remotely sounds like it's against SSM. Don't expect explanations either.

reprise wrote: »

Aint nothing any of us can do about our biological parents and I sympathise. However, I am discussing where prospective adoptive parent(s) are thoroughly assessed.

As you well know, adoptive parents are thoroughly assessed to the point of the adoption board nearly moving in with the couple and also assessing their friends and family (I was once a reference for a couple who sought to adopt, and the questions they asked me, as a friend, were nothing short of an interrogation!). Biological parents on the other hand, don't have to prove their worthiness in order to have kids, and so an awful lot of ar5eholes get to mess up children.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No, It's the chicken and the egg. You cannot change Marriage without changing the Family. If you could they would not have gone to the trouble of massively changing the family.

They aren't bringing in the Bill because of the referendum though and the Bill is what's changing family. SSM will not change family due to this Bill but the Bill isn't being brought in for SSM.

Shrap wrote: »

As you well know, adoptive parents are thoroughly assessed to the point of the adoption board nearly moving in with the couple and also assessing their friends and family (I was once a reference for a couple who sought to adopt, and the questions they asked me, as a friend, were nothing short of an interrogation!). Biological parents on the other hand, don't have to prove their worthiness in order to have kids, and so an awful lot of ar5eholes get to mess up children.

Maybe we should make law's and start a licence process.... :pac::pac::pac:

anothernight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No, It's the chicken and the egg. You cannot change Marriage without changing the Family. If you could they would not have gone to the trouble of massively changing the family.

Meh, the UK has a very similar legal system and they seem to be doing fine with their same sex marriage. Other countries are doing fine too, even if their legal systems aren't quite as similar. If we went around stopping social reform because of legal issues (such as your mentioned family law), we'd still think that having slaves is perfectly acceptable, or that divorce shouldn't be allowed.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Maybe we should make law's and start a licence process.... :pac::pac::pac:

Too much work for the legislators? :pac:;)

anothernight wrote: »

So what difference is there between a 'thoroughly assessed' married couple and an unmarried couple? Why should the married couple be 'considered more suitable to adopt', as per your own post?

Why not? all things being equal, why would a married couple not be seen as a providing a more stable environment than an unmarried couple seeking to adopt?

reprise wrote: »

Why not? all things being equal, why would a married couple not be seen as a providing a more stable environment than an unmarried couple seeking to adopt?

Because it entirely depends on the couple, the quality of their relationship and their emotional maturity, etc., not the married status.

sup_dude wrote: »

People like to bring it up because it makes them feel as though they have an argument, even though they don't. Although, going by post history, reprise doesn't have an argument anyway and will latch onto anything and everything that remotely sounds like it's against SSM. Don't expect explanations either.

This is an argument?

How very very sad.

reprise wrote: »

Why not? all things being equal, why would a married couple not be seen as a providing a more stable environment than an unmarried couple seeking to adopt?

Maybe. But an unmarried couple could want to get married further down the line. Should they be denied adoption because they aren't married now, even if they're great parents? What about single people?

Shrap wrote: »

Because it entirely depends on the couple, the quality of their relationship and their emotional maturity, etc., not the married status.

I did say, all other things being equal.

reprise wrote: »

This is an argument?

How very very sad.

Not really reprise. I was in the marriage referendum thread and I know your posting style on this topic and this thread hasn't changed my mind that you've changed your style.

sup_dude wrote: »

Maybe. But an unmarried couple could want to get married further down the line. Should they be denied adoption because they aren't married now, even if they're great parents? What about single people?

Sorry, I have had enough ad hominem from you.

reprise wrote: »

I did say, all other things being equal.

Are we talking about the same couple, just as either married or unmarried? Or two different couples? If it's the same couple, then after this bill is passed then there could be no preference either way. If two different couples, then it will be the couple best suited to care for the child.