Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

To Need a Woman · 19-04-2015 10:56AM

osarusan wrote: »

what is the point?

Obviously... homosexual adoption. After all, it's pretty much the only difference between a marriage and a civil partnership

PopePalpatine · 19-04-2015 10:58AM

Oh boy, another obnoxious No voter.

osarusan · 19-04-2015 10:58AM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

No! What it ultimately boils down to is children... because the homosexual couples will want to adopt. Civil partnerships give the gays all the rights they want, expect to be allowed to raise a kid in an 'experiment'

This post must set a record for how many ways it is possible to be incorrect in so few words.

Kiwi in IE · 19-04-2015 11:01AM

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/call-for-radical-amendment-to-proposed-child-bill-1.2107097

“I love my kids but I could not do my wife’s job. I could not be a mother. I could not give my children what their mother gives them,” Professor Ray Kinsella, Mothers and Fathers Matter

I think Professor Kinsella would do well to reflect on these opinions and examine why he believes this is the case. The fact he believes he can not give his children what their mother gives them most likely results from either a belief that he is an inadequate parent, or from his marriage being stuck in archaic, socially constructed gender roles. Either way it is sad if he feels inadequate as a parent but no reason to set up a campaign to try and promote these views as the social norm.

G_R · 19-04-2015 11:03AM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

Obviously... homosexual adoption. After all, it's pretty much the only difference between a marriage and a civil partnership

The children and family relationships bill which was recently passed by the dail/Seanad will fix this - so marriage will have no impact on a person's right to adopt.

Under the bill, co habiting (gay or straight) partners will be able to jointly adopt, regardless of whether the referendum passes or not

floggg · 19-04-2015 11:06AM

fran17 wrote: »

I really do not understand why you continue to avoid reprimand for the grossly uncivil language you use against people in this thread.

And I really do not understand why you continue to duck even basic questions on your posts, many of which are grossly offensive and without any basis.

You might find my language uncivil, but the difference between my posts and yours is that mine are demonstrably true based on the facts and evidence before us.

Edit - great. now Fran will get to further his martyr complex, when in reality they were some of the most odious and personal comments I've ever read on here.

One eyed Jack · 19-04-2015 11:08AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh boy, another obnoxious No voter.

Aye, they really do give that impression alright -

"I know I'm wrong, I don't care, I'm going to have my say"...

Willful ignorance or just outright misdirection to waste people's time.

galljga1 · 19-04-2015 11:11AM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

No! What it ultimately boils down to is children... because the homosexual couples will want to adopt. Civil partnerships give the gays all the rights they want, expect to be allowed to raise a kid in an 'experiment'

Good God, get educated before making idiotic statements.

oldrnwisr · 19-04-2015 11:11AM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

No! What it ultimately boils down to is children... because the homosexual couples will want to adopt. Civil partnerships give the gays all the rights they want, expect to be allowed to raise a kid in an 'experiment'

OK, let's get a few things straightened out shall we?

Firstly, adoption is not the only means by which a same-sex couple can have a child and is actually less common than IVF.

Secondly, single gay people have been able to adopt children since the Adoption Act in 1991.

Thirdly, with the recent introduction of the Children and Family Relationships Act, gay couples can now apply to adopt as a couple.

Fourthly, children being raised by same-sex couples is not new and is not an experiment. Same-sex couples have been raising children for a long time. We've been studying its effects for over forty years now and the conclusions of all the research that has been done (and this can't be repeated often enough) is that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between children raised by gay couples and those raised by straight couples. This issue has been studied in every way possible from longitudinal studies tracking the children's development through to adulthood to large nationally representative surveys and even meta-analyses combining the data obtained from the many smaller studies out there. The evidence that same-sex couples are just as good parents as straight couples is about as robust as any evidence from any other field of science. If you'd like to find out more you can read the research here:

LGBT Parenting Research

Finally, civil partnership does not confer all the rights that civil marriage does. In fact there are 160 statutory differences between civil partnership and civil marriage. You can read them for yourself here:

List of differences between civil partnership and civil marriage

To Need a Woman · 19-04-2015 11:12AM

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

Under the bill, co habiting (gay or straight) partners will be able to jointly adopt, regardless of whether the referendum passes or not

Hold on to your butts!

osarusan · 19-04-2015 11:14AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If you'd like to find out more...

Herein lies the problem.

G_R · 19-04-2015 11:17AM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

Hold on to your butts!

Excuse me?

galljga1 · 19-04-2015 11:18AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's get a few things straightened out shall we?

Firstly, adoption is not the only means by which a same-sex couple can have a child and is actually less common than IVF.

Secondly, single gay people have been able to adopt children since the Adoption Act in 1991.

Thirdly, with the recent introduction of the Children and Family Relationships Act, gay couples can now apply to adopt as a couple.

Fourthly, children being raised by same-sex couples is not new and is not an experiment. Same-sex couples have been raising children for a long time. We've been studying its effects for over forty years now and the conclusions of all the research that has been done (and this can't be repeated often enough) is that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between children raised by gay couples and those raised by straight couples. This issue has been studied in every way possible from longitudinal studies tracking the children's development through to adulthood to large nationally representative surveys and even meta-analyses combining the data obtained from the many smaller studies out there. The evidence that same-sex couples are just as good parents as straight couples is about as robust as any evidence from any other field of science. If you'd like to find out more you can read the research here:

LGBT Parenting Research

Finally, civil partnership does not confer all the rights that civil marriage does. In fact there are 160 statutory differences between civil partnership and civil marriage. You can read them for yourself here:

List of differences between civil partnership and civil marriage

Well done. I was collating something similar. I do not have the patience for this anymore. Babbling idiots making statements which show that they simply have no idea what the actuality reality is, are starting to really annoy me.

floggg · 19-04-2015 11:18AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

To be honest I find this harping on about the special, separate virtues of mothers slightly patronising. Because we give birth to the child does not automatically make us better parents or make our love for our children superior to that of their father. My OH is actually the better parent in many respects in our relationship, he has more patience and more imagination when playing by a long way, he is more even tempered in the face of adversity and more pleasantly responsive to issues that occur between 1 and 7am.

I find that this argument from the no side insults both mothers and fathers. It is both reminiscent of a time when women were supposed to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and it is insulting to all the fathers who are excellent parents.

I have asked a number of times what it is that a mother and father each specifically bring to the table.

Genitals aside, nobody has been able to give me an answer.

shruikan2553 · 19-04-2015 11:21AM

floggg wrote: »

I have asked a number of times what it is that a mother and father each specifically bring to the table.

Genitals aside, nobody has been able to give me an answer.

It's strange how nobody seems to be able to explain. It remind me of when children talk about something. Oh I know what it is, don't you? Is the only answer you get.

To Need a Woman · 19-04-2015 11:22AM

floggg wrote: »

I have asked a number of times what it is that a mother and father each specifically bring to the table.

Genitals aside, nobody has been able to give me an answer.

Well obviously, there's no short answer for a question like that. You'd have to sit you down and give a series of examples.

For example I don't think two lipstick lesbians would be equipped with the tools to raise a son. When he'd eventually grow up he'd end up bitter and resentful about who 'shaped' him when he didn't know any better.

shruikan2553 · 19-04-2015 11:24AM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

Well obviously, there's no short answer for a question like that. You'd have to sit you down and give a series of examples.

For example I don't think two lipstick lesbians would be equipped with the tools to raise a son

Such as? Single mothers would have the same issue wouldn't they?

This is what I meant by vague answers that answer nothing.

To Need a Woman · 19-04-2015 11:27AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Such as? Single mothers would have the same issue wouldn't they?

So why make it any worse!

But having TWO mother(and not just one) would be more likely to make you into a nancy boy

shruikan2553 · 19-04-2015 11:31AM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

So why make it any worse!

But having TWO mother(and not just one) would be more likely to make you into a nancy boy

Based on? Psychological organisations say it is fine. What do you know that they don't? What is a nancy boy? What about raising girls?

Kiwi in IE · 19-04-2015 11:36AM

Can you please explain the terms 'Nancy Boy' and 'Lipstick Lesbian' To Need a Woman?

One eyed Jack · 19-04-2015 11:39AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/call-for-radical-amendment-to-proposed-child-bill-1.2107097

“I love my kids but I could not do my wife’s job. I could not be a mother. I could not give my children what their mother gives them,” Professor Ray Kinsella, Mothers and Fathers Matter

I think Professor Kinsella would do well to reflect on these opinions and examine why he believes this is the case.

I think he would do better actually to reflect on this particular statement as it is grossly misleading -

Prof Kinsella argued that the Bill would “promote” arrangements under which children would be “intentionally denied” either a mother or a father.

He knows it is misleading because he has enclosed it in inverted commas. There is nothing in the Children and Family Relationship Bill which even suggests or even alludes to this being the case.

The fact he believes he can not give his children what their mother gives them most likely results from either a belief that he is an inadequate parent, or from his marriage being stuck in archaic, socially constructed gender roles. Either way it is sad if he feels inadequate as a parent but no reason to set up a campaign to try and promote these views as the social norm.

Notwithstanding the fact that the institution of marriage itself is a civil social construct that dates back centuries (certainly enough to be considered archaic), the fact is that his views are the social norm, and this is evidenced by the fact that it's only in recent years (the last 40 years or so in Ireland anyway, not really a long time at all) that view has begun to change.

I don't agree with his spreading misleading information, and I'm not defending him, but I do think it would play right into his hands to be drawing comparisons or ignoring the fact that more people voting are actually in opposite sex marriages, and any opinion which might be perceived as undermining their relationship and you could be in danger of making them feel alienated - the very thing you're trying to prevent for people who are LGBT who are already alienated from the opportunity to enter into the archaic socially constructed institution of civil marriage.

It's important to emphasise for people that the institution of civil marriage isn't being redefined, there will be no such thing as parents or children being denied anything, and in fact it will be quite the opposite - more opportunities and more rights and more protection for everyone in society now and for future generations to come.

Cold War Kid · 19-04-2015 11:44AM

Aaah, Paddy Manning - now there's a man who is utterly gutted at not being heterosexual. It must have been hard when he was younger in Ireland, for sure, but after a point, self loathing is very hard to empathise with IMO.

Anita Blow · 19-04-2015 11:53AM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

Hold on to your butts!

To Need a Woman wrote: »

For example I don't think two lipstick lesbians would be equipped with the tools to raise a son. When he'd eventually grow up he'd end up bitter and resentful about who 'shaped' him when he didn't know any better.

To Need a Woman wrote: »

But having TWO mother(and not just one) would be more likely to make you into a nancy boy

Where's the No voters decrying the accusations of homophobia now?

One eyed Jack · 19-04-2015 11:58AM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Aaah, Paddy Manning - now there's a man who is utterly gutted at not being heterosexual. It must have been hard when he was younger in Ireland, for sure, but after a point, self loathing is very hard to empathise with IMO.

Aye, I thought it was a particular self-loathing myself, but having watched the clip linked to earlier, it seems his gripe is with the political system moreso than any internal self-hatred.

He seems pissed because we're not having a debate on the issues (this thread will self-destruct in five seconds, nothing to see here, no discussion, no sireee :pac: ), but I personally feel that Paddy is using this referendum to further his own political agenda (with his own political axe to grind) rather than actually giving a damn about what it's passing would mean for society. Paddy wants attention basically.

(his comments about surrogacy being "third-party prostitution" I found particularly vile, and were he to come out with a dramatic statement like that on primetime tv, I imagine far more than I would find his attitude repulsive)

floggg · 19-04-2015 11:58AM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

Well obviously, there's no short answer for a question like that. You'd have to sit you down and give a series of examples.

For example I don't think two lipstick lesbians would be equipped with the tools to raise a son. When he'd eventually grow up he'd end up bitter and resentful about who 'shaped' him when he didn't know any better.

Instead of trolling for a ban, wouldn't it just be easier to voluntarily stop posting this nonsense?

To Need a Woman · 19-04-2015 12:01PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Based on? Psychological organisations say it is fine. What do you know that they don't?

We can both refer to an organisation that suits our arguments!!!

shruikan2553 wrote: »

What is a nancy boy?

You're not doing yourself any favours there!

shruikan2553 · 19-04-2015 12:02PM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

We can both refer to an organisation that suits our arguments!!!

You're not doing yourself any favours there!

Wow. Another non answer. i would love to see what you write in exams.

Would your organisations be recognised in dealing with children and psychology?

Kiwi in IE · 19-04-2015 12:05PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think he would do better actually to reflect on this particular statement as it is grossly misleading -

He knows it is misleading because he has enclosed it in inverted commas. There is nothing in the Children and Family Relationship Bill which even suggests or even alludes to this being the case.

Notwithstanding the fact that the institution of marriage itself is a civil social construct that dates back centuries (certainly enough to be considered archaic), the fact is that his views are the social norm, and this is evidenced by the fact that it's only in recent years (the last 40 years or so in Ireland anyway, not really a long time at all) that view has begun to change.

I don't agree with his spreading misleading information, and I'm not defending him, but I do think it would play right into his hands to be drawing comparisons or ignoring the fact that more people voting are actually in opposite sex marriages, and any opinion which might be perceived as undermining their relationship and you could be in danger of making them feel alienated - the very thing you're trying to prevent for people who are LGBT who are already alienated from the opportunity to enter into the archaic socially constructed institution of civil marriage.

It's important to emphasise for people that the institution of civil marriage isn't being redefined, there will be no such thing as parents or children being denied anything, and in fact it will be quite the opposite - more opportunities and more rights and more protection for everyone in society now and for future generations to come.

I agree with the majority of your post in that the referendum has nothing to do with children or parents. However there is a relentless harping on from the no side about the 'special' roles of mothers and fathers and how they are essential in a child's upbringing. I don't think they should be let away with this when they are consistently unable to provide any explanation or evidence as to exactly what these 'special' roles, that each gender plays in the upbringing of children, that the other is incapable of, are!

To Need a Woman · 19-04-2015 12:10PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Wow. Another non answer. i would love to see what you write in exams.

Would your organisations be recognised in dealing with children and psychology?

My point is that there are so many studies and organisations out there that it wouldn't be too hard for anyone to find one that happens to support their view point. I don't have an organisation to reference because I naturally haven't felt the desire to look into this too much(as it doesn't effect me), but what's your organisation as a reference??

galljga1 · 19-04-2015 12:14PM

To Need a Woman wrote: »

My point is that there are so many studies and organisations out there that it wouldn't be too hard for anyone to find one that happens to support their view point. I don't have an organisation to reference because I naturally haven't felt the desire to look into this too much(as it doesn't effect me), but what's your organisation as a reference??

Your general lack of knowledge seems to back up your point that you "haven't felt the desire to look into this too much".

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments