How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

noway12345 wrote: »

Child rearing has come in many forms, you are correct but in the main it has been with a male and female influence. Especially in the early stages.

Will the male friends of the lesbian couple be there every night and every morning? The biggest influence on a child comes from their parents. This is an undeniable fact.

Please back up your "facts" with proof. You have been asked many time to show your source/proof and each time you seem to magically forget or ignore.

noway12345 wrote: »

There has been studies into it but the lack of homosexual parents available has made it difficult. The general consensus of the studies show that having a male and female parent is optimal, having two female parents is a small bit behind and having two male parents is a long way behind.

Oh no you didn't...

noway12345 wrote: »

Child rearing has come in many forms, you are correct but in the main it has been with a male and female influence. Especially in the early stages.

Will the male friends of the lesbian couple be there every night and every morning? The biggest influence on a child comes from their parents. This is an undeniable fact.

In your experience perhaps, but I can't say I share your opinion as I know in my own life, the biggest influence on my early childhood was my widowed elderly next door neighbour who showed me the meaning of showing compassion and humanity for other people, and there have been many people influence my world view since then as I grew into adulthood. My parents had very little influence in my life as they were hardly ever present.

Your point might hold true if people were raised in a bubble with their parents, but they're not. They have brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, neighbours, teachers, coaches... potentially an infinite number of influences in their lives. They don't stay children forever either.

noway12345 wrote: »

http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_College_of_Pediatricians.pdf

Oh you didn't!

You did!

It's Regenerus!

Here is some info on why that 'study' is not what you are trying to claim it is:
http://www.regnerusfallout.org/frequently-asked-questions

It's so bad that US anti SSM groups are running, not walking, away from it.

Disgraced “academic” Mark Regnerus slid yet further into ignominy on Wednesday after defenders of Utah’s doomed gay marriage ban expunged all references to his debunked study in their brief. The state, which is currently defending the invalidated ban before the Tenth Circuit, had cited Regnerus in two footnotes in a previously filed brief, and structured much of its argument around the conclusions of Regnerus’ work, which asserts that gay couples make inferior parents. Now the state is asking the Tenth Circuit to pretend those footnotes don’t exist, a last-minute revision made “in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus.”

Euphemistic excuses aside, everyone knows that Utah dropped the Regnerus study in direct response to a Michigan federal judge’s complete and total dismissal of Regnerus’ work, after he denounced it as “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/10/utah_gay_marriage_opponents_drop_mark_regnerus_debunked_study.html


There's loads more like that if you want to read it

I would love to vote No, but I cant justify it.

noway12345 wrote: »

http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_College_of_Pediatricians.pdf

Small piece of advice for you. When linking to a document you wish to cite, make sure the guy who wrote it wasn't heavily influenced by a man who was so amazingly discredited that even Anti-SSM groups backed away from him, that's how bad his level of corruption is.

noway12345 wrote: »

Can't argue with fact - put up silly picture instead.

Or, you know, throw in emoticons in lieu of facts.

noway12345 wrote: »

Child rearing has come in many forms, you are correct but in the main it has been with a male and female influence. Especially in the early stages.

Will the male friends of the lesbian couple be there every night and every morning? The biggest influence on a child comes from their parents. This is an undeniable fact.

Male and females influence does not mean it has to be mammy and daddy.
Are you equally concerned about single parents? Where will their children get male and female influence from?
Why only concern for the children raised by same sex parents???



Will every father be there every night and every morning?
What about the fathers who work long hours?
Or have a long commute?
Or work abroad?
Or play GAA - those lads train a lot and work too- ?
Or in the Army - no 6 months peacekeeping abroad if you are a daddy?
Or Navy - can't go to sea when you are a daddy?
Pilots?
Firefighters?


No - in the main it wasn't. In the main men used to go to work while women took care of the children. All the men in my father's family were bakers. They all started work at 4 am. Never there in the mornings. Ever. My brother worked in Italy but his family lived in Switzerland - they saw him on weekends.

Then women went to work too (when they weren't barred from doing so) so people had to make child care arrangements - grand parents, child minders, creche etc until the children went to school aged 5 when they were to come under the influence of many many different influences and so on and so forth.

I really don't know what fantasy world you think was/is out there but the reality is that for most married couples with children they are working their arses off the pay for childcare so they can work and childcare is where children spend most of their day. Not at home with a Stepford wife baking apple pie.

noway12345 wrote: »

Right, so I'm just telling you what we know. The ideal upbringing for kids is with a mother and father. I did not say that homosexuals will eat their babies or anything like that.

What do you think homosexuals will do that makes it undesirable for them to be allowed to raise children?

Sonics2k wrote: »

No, but here's the point. His findings were debated, and then reviewed by numerous other people, all with equal or greater qualifications, and they -all- found them to be highly flawed and even blatantly lied about.
When Anti-SSM groups actively back away from his work, you know it's not something they want to be associated with.

He lied on his research. That is what an actual fact is.



You said there are exceptions. This therefore stops your comment from being a fact. Please, go and read up what a fact is.

Gravity is a fact. The Earth revolving around the sun is a fact.

It cannot, by it's very definition, be a fact unless it is 100% true. If there are exceptions, it is not a fact.

You could be really pedantic and say that there's scientifically no such thing as fact. The closest thing to fact in science terms is a theory.