Adoption/parenting aspects of SSM

eagle eye wrote: »

It's not against men as such, just that I believe that a mother is so important in the life of a child. I'm a father myself and my partner always tells me and others that I'm a great father but I am certain that I would never be able to do the job that a mother does. I don't think men are capable of doing that job. Obviously there might be that one in a million but women are just so much better at it for the most part.

What exactly is this job that mothers can do but fathers can't? I keep hearing this rolled out, but nobody talks in specifics. (Barring breastfeeding, I just don't see it)

eagle eye wrote: »

If I had any involvement in decisions over who gets to adopt a child I'd have the order hetrosexual couple, lesbian couple, single female, gay male couple and single man as the order of preference.

I'd go with the couple / individual who put forward the best case for the child on a case by case basis instead of making presumptions before seeing the specifics.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But.
I wasn't dismissing.
I was asking him to explain what he thought those gender defined roles are...

No one seems to be able to explain it other than in terms that some might say look a inseey winceey bit sexist..

Personally, I think implying only mother's can do the nur-cher kissy better talk bout periods stuff is insulting to fathers.

Ok well I've never had a problem with being seen as sexist, so from where I stand, from my personal experience, both men and women do bring different sides to the table. We could argue all day over anecdotal experience and indeed statistics, but realistically speaking, for me it's more than just about period talk or who shaves who or any of the rest of it (I was 12 when my mother sat me down with a bic razor and talcum powder and shaved my face for me! ).

Both my parents were from the "tough shìt" school of parenting, there was no time for emotions like love and so on, they were both entirely pragmatic in their approach to parenting (and yes, I've mentioned before that they were of the particularly fundie "devoutly religious" variety). They were unusually cruel when they wanted to be, but even then I could see differences in how they chose to inflict cruelty - my old man was both a mix of physical beating and psychological manipulation, and my mother was a mix of emotional and psychological manipulation.

I was only lucky that I had my elderly widowed next door neighbour who I often give credit to for raising me because that's pretty much what she did, instilling in me an empathy and compassion for other people and showing me that religion wasn't all fire and brimstone and on your knees for a decade of the rosary. She showed me a completely different take on many different things. There was a relationship between us which I could never articulate at the time, but I know it felt different to the way I felt about my parents.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think my parents were bad people, and I could never think that. I just think they were misguided, and miserable, and bitter, but they too taught me so much that I will never be able to repay them for. Had it not been for my mothers persistence, I wouldn't be able to read or write as I am now if she had listened to every expert who told her that because of my below average IQ I would probably fare better in a special school. She didn't listen when my father rejected me as never going to amount to anything. His attitude only changed when he saw I was particularly gifted mathematically and only then was I considered worthy of helping him in his workshop or being let near a lathe (I became "useful").

My mother schooled me in the Arts and languages, my father schooled me in engineering and mathematics, neither of whom would ever show or entertain emotion, except of course anger. They had that one down alright. But it was my neighbour who nurtured my emotional intelligence.

Some people may see that as "ugh, sexist traditional role play and stereotyping", but it's not an atypical perspective, and it's one that I've learned from in my own relationship where I tell my wife that I couldn't do what I do every day, without her doing what she does every day. My wife works in the home and has done a fantastic job of raising our child almost single-handed, something which I know I couldn't have done so easily, only if I had to, because then there would have been a need, as opposed to it being a conscious choice.

We can talk all day about the best "parenting configuration" for children and all the rest of it, but there's a hell of a lot more to it than that, and academic arguments where we overlook people's experiences in favour of idealism are just never going to gain any traction.

I think that parents of the same sex should be able to argue for same sex parenting on it's own merits, based on their experiences (and let's be honest, you've done a damn good job!), and shouldn't get bogged down in an arguing comparisons or otherwise between other parenting "configurations" (an awful fcuking word in that context tbh), because that's how you change people's attitudes, by showing people not that there's no difference, but that there's no comparison!

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think that's right but, more than that, I don't think the vote is about using the law to promote some kind of perfect family.

Whether gay parents are better or worse than anyone else is largely irrelevant. It's about how the law provides for some aspects of family law; how it should deal, for the sake of argument, with bad parents, whether the parents are married or single.

Legislation already exists to address those circumstances.

A family could be a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son (I'm sure everyone could pick similar configurations from their experience). Does anyone see this referendum as having any application in that situation? I don't.

Yes, because if the grandmother were a lesbian who wanted to marry her girlfriend, she wouldn't be able to, nor would her daughters be able to marry their girlfriends if they were lesbian, and if their son were gay, well, you get the idea.

In a sense, the issue is more around that. Do people feel there's something added or subtracted by including gay couples in a marriage framework?

Of course there are many benefits to society by giving same sex couples the opportunity to enter into civil marriage in the same way as opposite sex couples. There is nothing which would detract from giving same sex couples the same opportunities as opposite sex couples.

Do we feel that a gay couple fit into that framework, and not the framework occupied by a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son?

Does the word 'consanguinuity' mean anything to you? The person's you talk about are already family related to each other by blood. Marriage offers couples not already related to each other to form a family as recognised by the State.

Do we feel that a civil partnership doesn't close the gap? Are we satisified that a grandmother, and two of her daughters, one of whom has a son don't need something like a civil partnership?

You know damn well what civil partnership is, and you know what civil marriage is, and you know that the above "configuration" as you present it has nothing to do with either. Where's this "gap" you talk about that isn't already addressed in current legislation?