Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

S.O · 12-04-2015 04:19PM

conorhal wrote: »

I was actually debating SSM with a co-worker over coffee who quietly told me that she intends on voting no and who said that it was refreshing to have an open debate about it, because she felt as if no voters could only really talk to those they can unequivocally trust, she wouldn't even talk about it with her sister who's a fervent yes voter.

Whether you buy it or not, if someone publically voices a negative opinion on SSM, the truth is that they can expect more then a robust debate. They can expect to be the subject of a pervasive on line hate campaign.

Correct analysis, one only has to look back to Lucinda Creighton publicly expressing her view disagreeing with same sex marriage around the time of the 2011 general election, Lucinda was soon subjected to an online campaign of hatred + abuse directed towards her on facebook.

http://www.herald.ie/news/lucinda-is-bombarded-with-hate-messages-27974026.html

20Cent · 12-04-2015 04:44PM

S.O wrote: »

Correct analysis, one only has to look back to Lucinda Creighton publicly expressing her view disagreeing with same sex marriage around the time of the 2011 general election, Lucinda was soon subjected to an online campaign of hatred + abuse directed towards her on facebook.

http://www.herald.ie/news/lucinda-is-bombarded-with-hate-messages-27974026.html

Bullying is wrong of course but fb and Twitter comments seem to be taken far more seriously than they should.

fran17 · 12-04-2015 05:48PM

S.O wrote: »

Correct analysis, one only has to look back to Lucinda Creighton publicly expressing her view disagreeing with same sex marriage around the time of the 2011 general election, Lucinda was soon subjected to an online campaign of hatred + abuse directed towards her on facebook.

http://www.herald.ie/news/lucinda-is-bombarded-with-hate-messages-27974026.html

There has been a litany of nasty attacks directed towards anyone who has the moral fibre to oppose this issue in public.There has been cases of death threats in other countries surrounding lgbtq activists and people/businesses who oppose gay marriage.
I have spoken to numerous people who are voting no but have said the opposite in there work place because of these exact reasons.Its another reason why people no longer engage in debate in this forum on this issue,sad but true.I believe there is a large,still silent,percentage of hard working honest people out there who will determine this referendums outcome.

Ave Sodalis · 12-04-2015 05:54PM

fran17 wrote: »

There has been a litany of nasty attacks directed towards anyone who has the moral fibre to oppose this issue in public.There has been cases of death threats in other countries surrounding lgbtq activists and people/businesses who oppose gay marriage.
I have spoken to numerous people who are voting no but have said the opposite in there work place because of these exact reasons.Its another reason why people no longer engage in debate in this forum on this issue,sad but true.I believe there is a large,still silent,percentage of hard working honest people out there who will determine this referendums outcome.

People in your work place are afraid of death threats in other countries?

Fran, your post history is exactly the reason people have become so defensive about the topic. How many threads on this subject have you not commented on?

Ghost Buster · 12-04-2015 06:09PM

theboy1 wrote: »

Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt IMO.

They should be afforded the right to marry absolutely, but It would be unfair on the child to have to cope with the stigma.

So bigotted people who teach bigotry to their children deny adoption to people nto protect the children from bigotry?

Ghost Buster · 12-04-2015 06:14PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Traditionally In Ireland it has been Only a Religious ceremony.

Really. How in the hell did my wife, at least I think she's my wife, get this marriage certificate we have! I dont remember a religious ceremony 14 years ago but if that's the ONLY marriage available then it must've happened.

Ghost Buster · 12-04-2015 06:16PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I Said Traditionally.

You said Only

S.O · 12-04-2015 06:25PM

I have noticed some comments on twitter from yes campaigners who have canvassed at the doors, the reaction some of them reported tells a story, a lot of maybe/IM not sure answers or Il wait and see answers have being mentioned as the feedback, what this says to me is a lot of people who are voting won,t openly admit their real voting intentions with any campaigners and will likely admit what way they really plan on voting to only very few people, to play devils advocate on the feedback if we are to believe what some of polls are indicating a lot of people voting yes, won,t the feedback to canvassers on the doorsteps be mainly yeses ?

For the record I am voting no next month my reasons I will outline.

( 1 ) I am against redefining marriage, I view marriage as between a man and a woman/husband and wife, if marriage gets redefined to include same sex couples under the term of marriage equality, its a slippery slope , what if in the future say someone wanted to redefine marriage under the term of marriage equality where people could marry their cousins/relations; or for a man to have multiple wives as in some societies in the world or to legalise arranged marriages ?

( 2 ) The debate so far is mainly presented as equality for adults to get married, but what about equality for children to have both a mother and a father ? same sex marriage is not just about two adults, it also includes adoption rights for same sex couples, which need to think about the rights of children to also to be taken into consideration , if a child has to miss out on a mother figure or a father figure growing up because of same sex adoptions I can,t in anyway vote yes to this referendum.

Recently different people have openly talked about their experience about being raised in same sex households, the first is Heather Barwick here is just some of what she had to say in an open letter.

Growing up, and even into my 20s, I supported and advocated for gay marriage. It’s only with some time and distance from my childhood that I’m able to reflect on my experiences and recognize the long-term consequences that same-sex parenting had on me. And it’s only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I can see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting.

Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a
child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same.
But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence
created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s
partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

Another is a 21 yr old woman ( Amy ) spoke openly on radio in Australia recently about being her experience brought up and raised by same sex lesbian parents.

Four adult children of same-sex parents have submitted amicus
curiae briefs in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals asking that it oppose the
legalization of same-sex “marriage."

The Court, in New Orleans, La., heard arguments on Jan. 9 as it considers
whether to uphold traditional marriage – defined as being between one man and one woman -- in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

B.N. Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz, and Katy Faust all grew up
with homosexual parents. All four argued that redefining marriage to include
same-sex couples would harm children by depriving them of a mother or
father.

In her brief, Dawn Stefanowicz described her experience living in a same-sex
household.

“I wasn’t surrounded by average heterosexual couples,” she says in her
court brief. “Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me
along to meeting places in the LGBT communities.
.”

“There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be
around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights
and innocence were violated.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

To anyone who supports adoption rights for same sex couples just what would you say to those people raised in same sex households who now have a negative view about the issue as adults ?

( 3)

Besides the element of same sex adoptions regarding the upcoming referendum, the other element people need to think about also is the assisted human reproduction aspect for same sex couples, the following was reported as little as two months ago.

An international team of scientists have shown that it is possible to create human sperm and eggs from stem cells derived from adult skin, regardless of the donor’s gender. While this breakthrough could help men and women who have been rendered infertile by disease, gay groups have also expressed hope that this project will eventually lead to the creation of children made from same-sex
parents.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/stem-cell-breakthrough-opens-door-two-dad-babies-little-2-years-323350

What does the issue of assisted human reproduction for same sex couples have to do with the referendum someone might ask ?

I refer to ARTICLE 41/ 3 1 of the irish constitution.

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of
Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it
against attack.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article41

If a yes vote passes on May 22nd, what quoted above is open to interpretation to open the door for assisted human reproduction for same sex couples, as it says.

the Family is founded,

But ARTICLE 41/ 3 1 is not saying on how a family can or cannot be founded that is why it is open to interpretation.

PopePalpatine · 12-04-2015 06:38PM

fran17 wrote: »

There has been a litany of nasty attacks directed towards anyone who has the moral fibre to oppose this issue in public.There has been cases of death threats in other countries surrounding lgbtq activists and people/businesses who oppose gay marriage.
I have spoken to numerous people who are voting no but have said the opposite in there work place because of these exact reasons.Its another reason why people no longer engage in debate in this forum on this issue,sad but true.I believe there is a large,still silent,percentage of hard working honest people out there who will determine this referendums outcome.

It's funny how you ignore death threats towards LGBTQ individuals. :rolleyes:

Also, that "CNS News" site looks like the sort of place that dreams of turning the USA into a totalitarian Christian cesspit.

kylith · 12-04-2015 06:39PM

S.O wrote: »

I have noticed some comments on twitter from yes campaigners who have canvassed at the doors, the reaction some of them reported tells a story, a lot of maybe/IM not sure answers or Il wait and see answers have being mentioned as the feedback, what this says to me is a lot of people who are voting won,t openly admit their real voting intentions with any campaigners and will likely admit what way they really plan on voting to only very few people, to play devils advocate on the feedback if we are to believe what some of polls are indicating a lot of people voting yes, won,t the feedback to canvassers on the doorsteps be mainly yeses ?

For the record I am voting no next month my reasons I will outline.

( 1 ) I am against redefining marriage, I view marriage as between a man and a woman/husband and wife, if marriage gets redefined to include same sex couples under the term of marriage equality, its a slippery slope , what if in the future say someone wanted to redefine marriage under the term of marriage equality where people could marry their cousins/relations; or for a man to have multiple wives as in some societies in the world or to legalise arranged marriages ?

Funnily enough the fact that you CAN'T marry your cousin, have multiple wives, and be forced into an arranged marriage means that marriage has already been redefined.

The reasons for these redefinitions have been 1) prevalence of genetic conditions, 2) issues of inheritance, and 3) coercion. All much more valid reasons than 'gay people are icky'.

S.O wrote: »

( 2 ) The debate so far is mainly presented as equality for adults to get married, but what about equality for children to have both a mother and a father ? same sex marriage is not just about two adults, it also includes adoption rights for same sex couples, which need to think about the rights of children to also to be taken into consideration , if a child has to miss out on a mother figure or a father figure growing up because of same sex adoptions I can,t in anyway vote yes to this referendum.

This vote does not include adoption rights for gay people. Gay people already can and do adopt and will continue to be able to do so regardless of the outcome of the May 22nd vote. Should single heterosexual people also be disallowed from having children as the child will be devoid of a father/mother figure? Should widow/ers have to give up their children as they won't have a father/mother figure? Since gay people are perfectly biologically capable of reproducing should they be sterilised?

Adamantium · 12-04-2015 06:42PM

I've been thinking about this for a while both sides and its come down to to this. If I vote Yes, it will mean give an inch but a mile in effect will be taken. Long term (over a period of decades, centuries) we don't know how it will effect society. Didn't have the "enlightened" citizens of Ancient Greece and Rome envision these liberties (though not in law, not openly, so why are they not around today, if they were so good back then?

People may think that gay marriages don't affect them at all. And in a limited way, that's true. Gay people being married doesn't directly affect you.

However, a society that has embraced gay marriage has embraced the idea that marriage represents a vehicle for romantic love aka FEELINGS and not a vehicle for families and raising well adjusted and healthy children.

Your society has given up on raising people in the most effective way possible. And if you think that having lower quality citizens in your country doesn't affect you, then we have another problem.

PopePalpatine · 12-04-2015 06:44PM

Wow, someone's overdosed on red pills.

pl4ichjgy17zwd · 12-04-2015 06:52PM

Adamantium wrote: »

Your society has given up on raising people in the most effective way possible. And if you think that having lower quality citizens in your country doesn't affect you, then we have another problem.

Are you calling the children of same-sex parents lower quality citizens?

Leaving out how offensive that is, you do know there's been decades of research that says they fare just as well as those from heterosexual families?

shruikan2553 · 12-04-2015 06:53PM

Can the people who think children have a right to a mother and father explain what will we do with single parents? Take the children away?

What about children already being taken care of by a same sex couple?

Either we take them away so they can have their right or that right isnt that important.

S.O · 12-04-2015 07:02PM

kylith wrote: »

This vote does not include adoption rights for gay people. Gay people already can and do adopt and will continue to be able to do so regardless of the outcome of the May 22nd vote. Should single heterosexual people also be disallowed from having children as the child will be devoid of a father/mother figure? Should widow/ers have to give up their children as they won't have a father/mother figure? Since gay people are perfectly biologically capable of reproducing should they be sterilised?

A yes vote would cement the rights for same sex couples to have adoption rights into the Irish constitution Once again I refer to.

ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the
institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it
against attack.

However lets say in the scenario its a no vote next month, if same sex couples can,t have access to marriage rights, Id imagine under article 41/ sec 3.1 is open to interpretation for adoptions rights for same sex couples.

I will deal with other points from your post.

Should single heterosexual people also be disallowed from having children as
the child

Should widow/ers have to give up their children as they won't have a
father/mother figure

No they shouldn,t be disallowed from having and parenting children, however there is a key distinction between a kid losing one of the parents if the mother or the father passes away, or the parents break up vs the creation of same sex households where a child misses out on a mother or father by deliberate design because of adoption rights for same sex couples.

Ave Sodalis · 12-04-2015 07:02PM

Adamantium wrote: »

I've been thinking about this for a while both sides and its come down to to this. If I vote Yes, it will mean give an inch but a mile in effect will be taken. Long term (over a period of decades, centuries) we don't know how it will effect society. Didn't have the "enlightened" citizens of Ancient Greece and Rome envision these liberties (though not in law, not openly, so why are they not around today, if they were so good back then?

People may think that gay marriages don't affect them at all. And in a limited way, that's true. Gay people being married doesn't directly affect you.

However, a society that has embraced gay marriage has embraced the idea that marriage represents a vehicle for romantic love aka FEELINGS and not a vehicle for families and raising well adjusted and healthy children.

Your society has given up on raising people in the most effective way possible. And if you think that having lower quality citizens in your country doesn't affect you, then we have another problem.

I would reply but apparently, even defending against posts like this is nasty attack on the no side. But I mean, posts like this are perfectly okay and there isn't anything wrong with it at all. Am I doing this right? :rolleyes:

Ave Sodalis · 12-04-2015 07:04PM

S.O wrote: »

No they shouldn,t be disallowed from having and parenting children, however there is a key distinction between a kid losing one of the parents if the mother or the father passes away, or the parents break up vs the creation of same sex households where a child misses out on a mother or father by deliberate design because of adoption rights for same sex couples.

Is there?

eviltwin · 12-04-2015 07:06PM

Adamantium wrote: »

I've been thinking about this for a while both sides and its come down to to this. If I vote Yes, it will mean give an inch but a mile in effect will be taken. Long term (over a period of decades, centuries) we don't know how it will effect society. Didn't have the "enlightened" citizens of Ancient Greece and Rome envision these liberties (though not in law, not openly, so why are they not around today, if they were so good back then?

People may think that gay marriages don't affect them at all. And in a limited way, that's true. Gay people being married doesn't directly affect you.

However, a society that has embraced gay marriage has embraced the idea that marriage represents a vehicle for romantic love aka FEELINGS and not a vehicle for families and raising well adjusted and healthy children.

Your society has given up on raising people in the most effective way possible. And if you think that having lower quality citizens in your country doesn't affect you, then we have another problem.

You'll have to explain what you mean by lower quality citizens. Gay people aren't going to go anywhere if this isn't passed. And non traditional families will continue to flourish if this isn't passed. It doesn't really do anything to stop that happening. All its doing is saying that society and government recognise the union of two people of the same sex in the same way it recognises that of opposite sex couples. I don't really see how that is bad for society or how it going to impact on people. Perhaps you'd explain a bit more?

S.O · 12-04-2015 07:07PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Can the people who think children have a right to a mother and father explain what will we do with single parents? Take the children away?

What about children already being taken care of by a same sex couple?

Either we take them away so they can have their right or that right isnt that important.

With regards to single parents there is a key distinction between a kid losing one of the parents if the parents break up vs the creation of same sex households where a child misses out on a mother or father by deliberate design because of adoption rights for same sex couples.

What about children already being taken care of by a same sex couple?

All depends on how old the childs is, if the child is under 12 the child should be taken off them and placed into an adopted family of both a mother and father.

Ave Sodalis · 12-04-2015 07:08PM

S.O wrote: »

All depends on how old the childs is, if the child is under 12 the child should be taken off them and placed into an adopted family of both a mother and father.

Because that won't at all be damaging to the mental health of a child...

shruikan2553 · 12-04-2015 07:12PM

S.O wrote: »

With regards to single parents there is a key distinction between a kid losing one of the parents if the parents break up vs the creation of same sex households where a child misses out on a mother or father by deliberate design because of adoption rights for same sex couples.

But is having a mother and a father not important?

Either a child needs both a mother and father regardless of how one was lost or they don't.

S.O wrote: »

All depends on how old the childs is, if the child is under 12 the child should be taken off them and placed into an adopted family of both a mother and father.

Will we open up the mother and baby homes again? This time we'll leave out the mothers and can have double the babies.
What about the current adoption laws that allow single people to adopt, will we revoke these previous adoptions?

Pherekydes · 12-04-2015 07:13PM

fran17 wrote: »

Cant believe your trying to discredit its validity.

Iona commissioned the survey. The wording and subsequent options were contrived to give the required result. That much should be obvious to even you.

eviltwin · 12-04-2015 07:13PM

S.O wrote: »

All depends on how old the childs is, if the child is under 12 the child should be taken off them and placed into an adopted family of both a mother and father.

So you want forced adoption of children of gay parents? Like we used to do with the children of single parents? Yeah, cause that was a great success wasn't it :rolleyes:

pablomakaveli · 12-04-2015 07:14PM

S.O wrote: »

All depends on how old the childs is, if the child is under 12 the child should be taken off them and placed into an adopted family of both a mother and father.

Thats a disgusting idea to hold.

Shrap · 12-04-2015 07:22PM

Adamantium wrote: »

If I vote Yes, it will mean give an inch but a mile in effect will be taken. Long term (over a period of decades, centuries) we don't know how it will effect society.

Yes, absolutely! I mean look what happened when women got the vote! Seriously controversial at the time and NOW look, there they are (the brazen hussies) with JOBS and choosing NOT to have families and everything! For sure, vote carefully. Anything could happen :eek:

S.O wrote: »

All depends on how old the childs is, if the child is under 12 the child should be taken off them and placed into an adopted family of both a mother and father.

Wow. Seems they're all out tonight eh? I don't know when I've seen a comment showing less regard for children than this one. F*** me, that's awful.

S.O · 12-04-2015 07:23PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

What about the current adoption laws that allow single people to adopt, will we revoke these previous adoptions?

With regards to adoption rights for single people, I would put the main preference for a child to be adopted by both a mother and a father, if an adoption agency can find a couple to adopt a child, I would put a single person next in line for a second preference to adopt a child.

kylith · 12-04-2015 07:24PM

S.O wrote: »

No they shouldn,t be disallowed from having and parenting children, however there is a key distinction between a kid losing one of the parents if the mother or the father passes away, or the parents break up vs the creation of same sex households where a child misses out on a mother or father by deliberate design because of adoption rights for same sex couples.

I'm not talking about losing a parent I'm talking about the fact that I can decide I'm sick of looking for a man and walk out the door, have sex, get pregnant, and decide to raise the child myself (or indeed a single woman can get pregnant by accident). Would you have me forced to marry the father (if known), or have the child taken away?

shruikan2553 · 12-04-2015 07:26PM

S.O wrote: »

With regards to adoption rights for single people, I would put the main preference for a child to be adopted by both a mother and a father, if an adoption agency can find a couple to adopt a child, I would put a single person next in line for a second preference to adopt a child.

You wish to deny children their right of a mother and father then?

kylith wrote: »

I'm not talking about losing a parent I'm talking about the fact that I can decide I'm sick of looking for a man and walk out the door, have sex, get pregnant, and decide to raise the child myself (or indeed a single woman can get pregnant by accident). Would you have me forced to marry the father (if known), or have the child taken away?

It appears only the children cared by gay people should have a mother and father. Much like the marriage is for procreation argument it only applies to you if you are a homosexual which is convenient.

eviltwin · 12-04-2015 07:28PM

S.O wrote: »

With regards to adoption rights for single people, I would put the main preference for a child to be adopted by both a mother and a father, if an adoption agency can find a couple to adopt a child, I would put a single person next in line for a second preference to adopt a child.

So a single person is better than two people? Being a single parent is not easy, just from a mental and physical point of view its better to have someone to share the load. But you'd still put a single person ahead of the natural parents of child just because the natural parent happens to be gay?

I have to say of all the nasty comments on here in the gay marriage threads yours has to be one of the worst. You must not have kids of your own cause if you did you'd know that for most parents they would do anything to be with their children. Imagine the impact on a person to have a child they have raised forcibly removed from their care for no other reason than they happen to be in a gay relationship. Imagine the impact on the child to be taken from the only home and family they have ever known. Your views are sick and evil, to make such a flippant remark like that is heartless.

I can't see very many straight couples willing to be party to that kind of thing either.

oldrnwisr · 12-04-2015 07:29PM

Oh dear, do I have to explain this again?

S.O wrote: »

( 1 ) I am against redefining marriage, I view marriage as between a man and a woman/husband and wife, if marriage gets redefined to include same sex couples under the term of marriage equality, its a slippery slope , what if in the future say someone wanted to redefine marriage under the term of marriage equality where people could marry their cousins/relations; or for a man to have multiple wives as in some societies in the world or to legalise arranged marriages ?

Welcome to the slippery slope fallacy. Your argument falls down because you haven't shown why, if we legalise same-sex marriage then we must also legalise incestuous or polygamous marriages as well. All you've done is stated that this is what will happen without showing why. This line of argument was used back in the 1950s when intterracial arguments were being tried in the courts:

"[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void."

When these arguments were made in Perez v. Sharp and Loving v. Viriginia, they were struck down as being flawed arguments. What makes you think that anything's changed in the last 50 years?

S.O wrote: »

( 2 ) The debate so far is mainly presented as equality for adults to get married, but what about equality for children to have both a mother and a father ? same sex marriage is not just about two adults, it also includes adoption rights for same sex couples, which need to think about the rights of children to also to be taken into consideration , if a child has to miss out on a mother figure or a father figure growing up because of same sex adoptions I can,t in anyway vote yes to this referendum.

Actually, with reference to adoption rights, that ship has already sailed. The Child and Family Relationships Act has already provided adoption rights to gay couples (unlike the previous adoption act where only gay singles could adopt, go figure). So you can't use adoption rights as a stick to beat the current referendum with.

Secondly, and this cannot be repeated often enough it seems, children who are raised by gay parents DO JUST AS WELL AS children raised by straight parents. This notion propounded by Quinn in the video that children have "a right to both a mother and father" sounds nice but isn't of any actual relevance to the debate. The qualities that actually affect a parent's relationship with their child and ultimately how well their child turns out include warmth, attentiveness and closeness rather than the gender of the parent. As I posted previously, the science on this issue has already found that:

"First, fathers and mothers influence their children in similar rather than dissimilar ways.

Stated differently, students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent involved is a mother or father.

Secondly, as research has unfolded, psychologists have been forced to conclude that the characteristics of individual fathers - such as their masculinity, intellect, and even their warmth - are much less important, formatively speaking, than are the characteristics of the relationships they have established with their children.

Marital harmony is a consistent correlate of child adjustment, whereas marital conflict is a consistent and reliable correlate of child maladjustment."

S.O wrote: »

Recently different people have openly talked about their experience about being raised in same sex households, the first is Heather Barwick here is just some of what she had to say in an open letter.

To anyone who supports adoption rights for same sex couples just what would you say to those people raised in same sex households who now have a negative view about the issue as adults ?

You see, here's the problem. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. Anecdotes may sound nice and have a lot of emotional impact but in terms of finding out if a claim is true or not, they are worth precisely squat.

The first reason is that there are anecdotes on both sides. Here is Zach Wahls for example talking about his positive experience of being raised in by gay parents:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

In my last post I also linked to Sonics2k's AMA where he recalled his positive experiences of being raised by a gay couple.

The point is that we can continue all night posting anecdote after anecdote on both sides and get nowhere. This is why we conduct studies to examine large groups of children and see how well children fare when raised by same-sex couples. The evidence from over four decades of research has shown that children raised by same-sex couples DO JUST AS WELL AS children from straight couples. If you want to read the research I have summarised it here:

LGBT Parenting Research

S.O wrote: »

( 3)

Besides the element of same sex adoptions regarding the upcoming referendum, the other element people need to think about also is the assisted human reproduction aspect for same sex couples, the following was reported as little as two months ago.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/stem-cell-breakthrough-opens-door-two-dad-babies-little-2-years-323350

What does the issue of assisted human reproduction for same sex couples have to do with the referendum someone might ask ?

I refer to ARTICLE 41/ 3 1 of the irish constitution.

If a yes vote passes on May 22nd, what quoted above is open to interpretation to open the door for assisted human reproduction for same sex couples, as it says.

But ARTICLE 41/ 3 1 is not saying on how a family can or cannot be founded that is why it is open to interpretation.

Assisted human reproduction (AHR) allows for couples to have children where they ordinarily couldn't. This is achieved using either harvested eggs and sperm or donor ones. The only difference between straight couples and gay couples using IVF is that gay couples will always be using donor eggs or sperm in all cases. Straight couples, by comparison, may have to use donor eggs or sperm but in many cases can just use harvested eggs and sperm. How does any of this relate to Article 41 though? Are you saying that a straight couple who use AHR because of fertility problems cannot found a family? Or is it just that AHR allows straight couples to have children and start a family and you think they shouldn't be allowed to? If so, you'll need to separately explain your reasons why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to use AHR.

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments