Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

jobbridge4life · 10-05-2015 07:44PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

+1

Outright lies and misleading unconnected nonsense.

There's a huge amount of it here on boards.ie, woodpecker style repetition of completely unrelated issues.

And even more telling, once one poster finally gets told to stick to the issues by Mod another appears to peddle the same nonsense until they get told off and the cycle continues ad infinitum.

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 07:47PM

Have to say I'm feeling a bit more confident that the Yes will pass as we get closer to the referendum date. 10-12 days before the divorce referendum, opinion polls were running at 52% in support following a progressive decline over the weeks prior. SSM on the other hand has seen a slight increase from 75% to 78% according to the Claire Byrne Live poll on Sunday. Someone on Reddit calculated that if you were to add the 16% No and 6% Undecideds (assuming they're soft No's, afraid to say they're voting no) turnout would have to be below 44% for the referendum to be defeated.

tayto lover · 10-05-2015 07:48PM

Trudiha wrote: »

No. There is no evidence that kids have significantly better outcomes because of the gender of their parents. The children of lesbians are very slightly better off but that probably has more to do with the economic status of the couple than gender.

Single parents who aren't economically disadvantaged have the same level of outcomes as couples, both gay and straight.

The single most positive thing you can do for a child is to make sure that they don't experience poverty.

Have you any evidence to support any of the above please.
Very interested in this.

Bannasidhe · 10-05-2015 07:54PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Have you any evidence to support any of the above please.
Very interested in this.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201006/25-year-long-study-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better

Zubeneschamali · 10-05-2015 08:01PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Im sure some of them who write for newspapers will have a piece about how they are now being oppressed and that doom will befall it all.

Nah, Iona are already pretending they were in favour of Civil Partnership, even though they said that was the end of the world at the time.

In 10 years, no-one will admit having been against SSM.

Smiley92a · 10-05-2015 08:01PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Have you any evidence to support any of the above please.
Very interested in this.

Well, if you're up for some heavy reading, there's this http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

If not, you can just read the introduction and the conclusion.

In reference to the above post, I can say that yeah, while there are a huge number of really complex factors that influence how a child will turn out, income trumps them all. So if you're going to be disabled, or gay, or a minority, you'll have much better chance if you're rich. Sociology can be a depressing field sometimes. Or all the time.

From the conclusion of the APA report: In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 08:02PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Have you any evidence to support any of the above please.
Very interested in this.

Grade A evidence to support it, longitudinal in design over 17 years- http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/1/28.abstract

The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts. The paper noted that same-sex couples are less like to use corporal punishment and have greater parental involvement, which has been associated with better psychological status.
It's suggested that there's slightly better outcomes among samesex parents largely because of the stringent criteria that must be met by any adoptive parents, gay or straight in terms of financial means to support the child, appropriate home environment etc.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 08:07PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In 10 years, no-one will admit having been against SSM.

Absolutely not! They are only getting away with spouting homophobic views now in the spirit of "debate". In 10 years time people will wonder how posters were allowed to get away with some current posts here on boards.ie.

On another website I used to use there is a hugely offensive homophobic poster who in recent weeks has taken to posting more disingenuous views, pretending to be concerned with irrelevant issues, so as not to look like an outright homophobe, whereas a quick post history search shows outrageous statements about homosexuality being wrong and disgusting from the same poster just a few years ago.

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 08:08PM

On a slightly related note, David Quinn (of Iona) lamented on Twitter during the week how it was uncontroversial to suggest that poverty and socioeconomic circumstances are a factor in a child's welfare, but that it was controversial to suggest gender mix was a factor.

Yet - despite there being a lot of research to back up the issue of poverty and socioeconomic status influencing child welfare outcomes - he would never, ever, ever start saying we should discriminate around family or marital law based on socioeconomic status. Or so I presume!

I think it underlines the weakness of the argument for idealisation of specific circumstances even where research could be wielded to back an argument. It's just a very unpalatable business IMO.

Smiley92a · 10-05-2015 08:10PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Grade A evidence to support it, longitudinal in design over 17 years- http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/1/28.abstract

The 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts. The paper noted that same-sex couples are less like to use corporal punishment and have greater parental involvement, which has been associated with better psychological status.
It's suggested that there's slightly better outcomes among samesex parents largely because of the stringent criteria that must be met by any adoptive parents, gay or straight in terms of financial means to support the child, appropriate home environment etc.

That's also something worth noting: you have to prove you're good enough to adopt a kid, any pair of idiots can rub their genitals together and just make a baby.

BuilderPlumber · 10-05-2015 08:13PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Gutted!

Was so looking forward to seeing this debate, since most of the others have been lame ducks.

I can't help but feel that BOTH of these are so similar. 5 things both Panti and Breda O'Brien (and any Iona person for that matter) have in common:

1. Their chief aim is to make money and lots of it.
2. They know how to put themselves about, gain fame and achieve their first aim.
3. They both are paranoid, delusional and can use the 'victim' complex when it suits. BOTH are far from being any victim!!
4. I am tired of seeing and reading about both.
5. Both are businesspeople which brings us back to 1!

Personally, I do not have any strong views on this topic but it would be nice to see someone other than Panti and Iona Institute people in the debate. Panti and his rivals are using this issue to further their own careers first and foremost. And once again, the TV, the papers, etc. are forcing these people on us. I have many Catholic friends who do not like Iona and I have many gay friends who do not like Panti. And I have many friends in general who can see through these people for what they are.

Kermit.de.frog · 10-05-2015 08:22PM

A lot of misguided focus on Catholicism in this thread but you don't have to be religious to see being gay as wrong or a disorder.

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 08:23PM

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

5 things both Panti and Breda O'Brien (and any Iona person for that matter) have in common:
. . . .

I have to call BS on that! Reasons #4 and #5 are essentially repeats of previous reasons, and do not constitute independent commonalities. This is what's WRONG with the whole debate on the subject of . . . . .

Wait, wait. . . Apologies, I'm just allowing myself to get wound up about a thread that is, after all, on the AH Forum. I can't wait for May 23rd (the count) to be over, so I can focus my attentions on other stuff.

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 08:25PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A lot of misguided focus on Catholicism in this thread but you don't have to be religious to see being gay as wrong or a disorder.

But you do have to be intolerant and homophobic.

(Before anybody gets up on a high horse, seeing homosexuality as "wrong or a disorder" is the very definition of homophobia)

G_R · 10-05-2015 08:25PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A lot of misguided focus on Catholicism in this thread but you don't have to be religious to see being gay as wrong or a disorder.

Mod

Knock it off - being Gay is not wrong or a disorder.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 08:26PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A lot of misguided focus on Catholicism in this thread but you don't have to be religious to see being gay as wrong or a disorder.

No, you just have to be homophobic.

LookingFor · 10-05-2015 08:26PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Have to say I'm feeling a bit more confident that the Yes will pass as we get closer to the referendum date. 10-12 days before the divorce referendum, opinion polls were running at 52% in support following a progressive decline over the weeks prior. SSM on the other hand has seen a slight increase from 75% to 78% according to the Claire Byrne Live poll on Sunday. Someone on Reddit calculated that if you were to add the 16% No and 6% Undecideds (assuming they're soft No's, afraid to say they're voting no) turnout would have to be below 44% for the referendum to be defeated.

We could have a low turnout though. That's something that worries me. Regrets only happen when it's too late, so get out and vote!

I'm glad you raised the Claire Byrne Live poll though - I was wondering if any had been done recently. Seems like it's been a while, and I don't believe any of the weekend papers had any? A lot of water had gone under the bridge since the previous ones, with the TV debates etc. I would be surprised if the polls do not narrow as we get closer, although I agree that this isn't the same picture as came out during the divorce ref polling.

BuilderPlumber · 10-05-2015 08:28PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A lot of misguided focus on Catholicism in this thread but you don't have to be religious to see being gay as wrong or a disorder.

Gay people are, and have always been, part of society. And society needs to judge people not on their sexuality but by the type of people they are. Treating others poorly just because they are a different sexual orientation is the same as being racist imo.

The Catholic church is the last organisation to be in a position to condemn homosexuality. Yet they denounce being gay. Being gay is not a crime. But being a gay pedophile is or being any kind of pedophile clearly is! Some of the very priests who sexually abused boys actually were among the most socially conservative on the alter!

BuilderPlumber · 10-05-2015 08:31PM

Zen65 wrote: »

I have to call BS on that! Reasons #4 and #5 are essentially repeats of previous reasons, and do not constitute independent commonalities. This is what's WRONG with the whole debate on the subject of . . . . .

Wait, wait. . . Apologies, I'm just allowing myself to get wound up about a thread that is, after all, on the AH Forum. I can't wait for May 23rd (the count) to be over, so I can focus my attentions on other stuff.

Maybe Panti and John Waters should get married as they are both paranoid old grumps

traprunner · 10-05-2015 08:31PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A lot of misguided focus on Catholicism in this thread but you don't have to be religious to see being gay as wrong or a disorder.

Nah. It's homophobia and bigotry that are wrong and are disorders. Treatment is probably available for both.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 08:32PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The GCU was over in the Iona vs. Panti thread more than a year ago, wondering why this issue was worthy of a referendum, and whatabout all sorts of other issues.

Not actually arguing for a No vote, just for no vote on this particular subject at this time, as they say.

Yes, and I've said much the same in current discussions. The fact that there's no depth behind the yes position is just complementary to that view.

Zubeneschamali · 10-05-2015 08:33PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A lot of misguided focus on Catholicism in this thread but you don't have to be religious to see being gay as wrong or a disorder...

but it really helps.

Zen65 · 10-05-2015 08:34PM

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Some of the very priests who sexually abused boys actually were among the most socially conservative on the alter!

A case of trying to portray an image to the wider public which would make any reports of 'fiddling' seem highly unlikely to the congregations and higher-ups. One might say, that this was how they hid their alter-ego.

(Yeah, I'm groaning about it too)

Anyway . . . this is not in any way related to the SSM debate!!

Anita Blow · 10-05-2015 08:34PM

LookingFor wrote: »

We could have a low turnout though. That's something that worries me. Regrets only happen when it's too late, so get out and vote!

I'm glad you raised the Claire Byrne Live poll though - I was wondering if any had been done recently. Seems like it's been a while, and I don't believe any of the weekend papers had any? A lot of water had gone under the bridge since the previous ones, with the TV debates etc. I would be surprised if the polls do not narrow as we get closer, although I agree that this isn't the same picture as came out during the divorce ref polling.

I absolutely do think that the Yes vote will be much lower on the day, but I think there will generally be a high turnout on the day. I don't remember any referendum getting as much coverage as this one and pushing to get out and vote. Think you'll see the biggest turnout from young voters that this country has ever seen and the Claire Byrne Live poll showed 94% of that demographic are planning on voting yes.
Being bombarded with Students Unions, bars/clubs, restaurants, celebrities etc. all encouraging young people to vote (with all generally promoting a yes vote). Recently I've been seeing a lot of facebook statuses getting shared as well of gay people giving their own personal accounts of growing up gay and what a yes vote would mean to them, and I think that's galvanizing intention on getting out to vote among young people.

Zubeneschamali · 10-05-2015 08:35PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes, and I've said much the same in current discussions. The fact that there's no depth behind the yes position is just complementary to that view.

Now that the referendum is here, of course, that old "There are more important issues" whataboutery won't do, and you had to come up with new whataboutery.

None of which justifies continuing to discriminate against same sex couples.

SummerSummit · 10-05-2015 08:36PM

I saw a poster on a lamppost on Westland Row at the weekend basically saying to Vote No because we need to stick it to the government. Also SF are just using the referendum to get their faces on all the posters for the next election.

flossy1 · 10-05-2015 08:36PM

What will happen to the ANN and BARRY books in school, will there be a MAMMY or DADDY or will we have 2 daddys or 2 mammys

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 08:38PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Have to say I'm feeling a bit more confident that the Yes will pass as we get closer to the referendum date. 10-12 days before the divorce referendum, opinion polls were running at 52% in support following a progressive decline over the weeks prior. SSM on the other hand has seen a slight increase from 75% to 78% according to the Claire Byrne Live poll on Sunday. Someone on Reddit calculated that if you were to add the 16% No and 6% Undecideds (assuming they're soft No's, afraid to say they're voting no) turnout would have to be below 44% for the referendum to be defeated.

Turnout into Children's Referendum was 33.5%.

That said, I think this will go through. If it doesn't, though, it will raise interesting questions again about the detachment of our political elites from the electorate.

traprunner · 10-05-2015 08:39PM

flossy1 wrote: »

What will happen to the ANN and BARRY books in school, will there be a MAMMY or DADDY or will we have 2 daddys or 2 mammys

What has this got to do with the referendum?

lazygal · 10-05-2015 08:41PM

flossy1 wrote: »

What will happen to the ANN and BARRY books in school, will there be a MAMMY or DADDY or will we have 2 daddys or 2 mammys

Gosh I don't know.
This is very serious.
Has anyone asked Breda?

Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

Comments