SSM why are you voting no?

gk5000 · 13-05-2015 01:05PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Tell me why its not?

I am sure you are aware of the consensus of the body of academic studies on the subject?

I asked the public, you included. My opinion is that man women compliment each other, and bring a balance not otherwise available.

You can get acedemic studies/experts for anything.

Zamboni · 13-05-2015 01:07PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Thanks to sydthebeat for the below:

sydthebeat wrote: »

so Justice Kevin Cross confirms today on newstalk:

1. there is no changing of the definition of marriage in this referendum
2. there is no changing of the definition of a family in this referendum
3. there is no change to the right to adoption. No one has the right to adopt, everyone has the right to apply to adopt.
4. there is no change to the right to surrogacy. Currently there are no rights to, or restictions from, surrogacy as there is a vacuum in the law on this issue.
5. no child has a legal right to a mother and father, so that doesnt change with this referendum.

the ONLY persons whos rights change in this referendum is a gay man or woman who want to marry, according to law.

NO ONE ELSES RIGHTS CHANGE AT ALL

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.301/47027/0/

You mean the Justice Kevin Cross who is a Fine Gael supporter, donator and son-in-law of a former Fine Gael minister?
Yeah, he would be completely unbiased.

Huntergonzo · 13-05-2015 01:08PM

gk5000 wrote: »

ok, do you think you and your man make a better parenting team, than say
you and one of your (girl) friends, or your man and one of his (man) friends?

Isn't that entirely down to each individual? A heterosexual couple doesn't automatically beat a homosexual couple when it comes to raising children you know, your argument is far too simplistic.

seamus · 13-05-2015 01:09PM

Zamboni wrote: »

You mean the Justice Kevin Cross who is a Fine Gael supporter, donator and son-in-law of a former Fine Gael minister?
Yeah, he would be completely unbiased.

...are you accusing RefCom of bias?

Zamboni · 13-05-2015 01:13PM

seamus wrote: »

...are you accusing RefCom of bias?

I am pointing out the connection Justice Kevin Cross has with Fine Gael, the majority party in a coalition government that is seeking the constitutional change managed by the Referendum Commission that he leads.

You can draw your own conclusions

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 01:18PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

Nonsense, Gaelic Ireland was patrilineal and patriarchal. That means by definition your kinship is determined by your biological father and traced through the male line. Whether a particular child was the product of the mans marriage or outside it did not change the kin group the child belonged to. Non-biological children raised in a mans family had no automatic right to his inheritance unless specified. Marriage meant the same then as it does now, the institution by which resulting children are assigned to a male (or female in matrilineal societies) biological blood line. Recognising the parentage of children born outside the marriage only strengthens the biological link between the child and their natural father.

Marriage was not about children as you are claiming because there was no concept of legitimacy therefore it made no difference if a particular child was the product of married parents or not - it has no effect on their membership of the clan, their status or - if applicable - membership of the derbfine.

Nicholls, Simms, Brady, Edwards, Morgan, MacCurtain, Lennon are all wrong are they?

Furthermore, an appeal to tradition is not a valid reason to deny people equal rights under the law in the 21st century- one could use the same 'it's traditional' argument to call for the reintroduction of slavery - after all... St Patrick was a slave...

TheChizler · 13-05-2015 01:22PM

222233 wrote: »

Has anyone come forward with a reason as to why I should change my mind and vote no?

The only logically sound argument (in theory) I've seen is that by allowing same sex marriage, you're increasing the pool (slightly) of people from which an unmarried mother can marry to be step-parent to their child. It's claimed that this would not be in the interest of the biological father (which ignores the existing rights IMO). Given that this would be so rare this is really more of an argument against allowing people to have children in general, as this would increase the pool of available singles by several orders of magnitude over allowing same sex marriage. So weigh up the pros and cons...

IMO this is about the same as saying the price of wedding venues will increase slightly due to the increased number of weddings, therefore vote no.

CaveCanem wrote: »

Nonsense, Gaelic Ireland was patrilineal and patriarchal. That means by definition your kinship is determined by your biological father and traced through the male line. Whether a particular child was the product of the mans marriage or outside it did not change the kin group the child belonged to. Non-biological children raised in a mans family had no automatic right to his inheritance unless specified. Marriage meant the same then as it does now, the institution by which resulting children are assigned to a male (or female in matrilineal societies) biological blood line. Recognising the parentage of children born outside the marriage only strengthens the biological link between the child and their natural father.

Oh no you di'ent! You about to get schooled!

Edit: too late!

gk5000 · 13-05-2015 01:37PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Dont you think that depends on the individuals?

My parents were heterosexuals and at least one of them was a bullying alcoholic. His idea of parenting was to drink the childrens allowance money.

But go on, tell me why your conclusion that gay people are inferior parents trumps decades of academic research on the subject.

No parent is probably better than a bad parent.

But assuming 2 good parents - I think men and women compliment each other- giving a male and female role model to the child.

So do you think the male/female role model is not important, in the best scenario?

13-05-2015 01:38PM

Isn't saying you're voting no because:

The yes side are playing dirty
or
You dislike the government

Not just a complete cop out and avoidance of giving your actual reasons for voting no?

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 01:39PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You do realise the mother also has the right to say she does want the child to go to a same-sex couple don't you?

Or do you think that could never ever happen?

Funnily enough I know of a situation where not only did the mother want her daughter to go to a same-sex couple - her husband suggested it and they got in contact with a lesbian couple who had mentioned to the mother's sister they would like to adopt some day.

All four were present at the birth and the child was placed in her adoptive mother's arms first at the request of her biological parents.

Married couple not only want same-sex couple to adopt their child but ask same-sex couple to adopt their child - you might need to go lie down in a dark room for a while to recover from learning that.

But you do agree that she has an absolute right to select a male female couple over a same sex couple purely as a matter of choice, for any reason or for no particular reason at all? How come she has a right to discriminate in that way, yet anyone else who disagrees that a gay couple rearing children that they simply cannot conceive, is not something we should be providing any accommodation for, then it's homophobia?

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 01:39PM

gk5000 wrote: »

I asked the public, you included. My opinion is that man women compliment each other, and bring a balance not otherwise available.

You can get acedemic studies/experts for anything.

You asked the public? When? I dont recall a referendum on the matter?

Eh, I dont think you understand the term consensus. It means that an entire body of work on the subject has been analysed, a body of work that contains studies showing both positive and negative results, and in this case has found that there is no disadvantage in gay parenting.

From another poster (thank you Gingervitis):

Gingervitis wrote: »

While I understand why it's not useful to bring children into arguments as this referendum is only about civil marriage, people should use hard empirical facts to refute claims about the capacity (or lack thereof), of LGBT couples to raise
children appropriately.
If you want to disregard evidence from the largest professional society of psychologists in the United States, also endorsed by the Australian Psychologist Society and the PSI here in Ireland, then in my mind, that is analogous to climate change denial or creationism. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/same-sex.aspx
https://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/lgbt/marriage-equality.pdf

But you still havent told us why YOU think gay parenting is inferior?

Complimenting and balance are a bit wishy washy, why dont you explain that a bit more clearly~?

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 01:41PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

But you do agree that she has an absolute right to select a male female couple over a same sex couple purely as a matter of choice, for any reason or for no particular reason at all? How come she has a right to discriminate in that way, yet anyone else who disagrees that a gay couple rearing children that they simply cannot conceive, is not something we should be providing any accommodation for, then it's homophobia?

Its already been explained to you. She is making a personal choice, the same way people make personal choices everyday of the week that are homophobic. Homophobia isnt a crime. But we shouldnt enshrine it in our constitution.

Are you confused about the difference between one person making a personal choice and the constitution of this land being applied through the law?

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 01:46PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

But you do agree that she has an absolute right to select a male female couple over a same sex couple purely as a matter of choice, for any reason or for no particular reason at all? How come she has a right to discriminate in that way, yet anyone else who disagrees that a gay couple rearing children that they simply cannot conceive, is not something we should be providing any accommodation for, then it's homophobia?

I believe a woman has the right to decide who she would prefer to adopt her child.

That is not the same thing as a blanket - gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt.

gk5000 · 13-05-2015 01:47PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Isn't that entirely down to each individual? A heterosexual couple doesn't automatically beat a homosexual couple when it comes to raising children you know, your argument is far too simplistic.

is there any value in a male and female role model?

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 01:48PM

gk5000 wrote: »

is there any value in a male and female role model?

Do role models have to be biological parents?

gk5000 · 13-05-2015 01:48PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

You asked the public? When? I dont recall a referendum on the matter?

Eh, I dont think you understand the term consensus. It means that an entire body of work on the subject has been analysed, a body of work that contains studies showing both positive and negative results, and in this case has found that there is no disadvantage in gay parenting.

From another poster (thank you Gingervitis):

But you still havent told us why YOU think gay parenting is inferior?

Complimenting and balance are a bit wishy washy, why dont you explain that a bit more clearly~?

A male and female role model for the child.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 01:49PM

gk5000 wrote: »

is there any value in a male and female role model?

Do you think that lesbian parents raise children in an all female environments?

And that male gay parents raise them in all male environments?

Wont they still have aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers of opposite sex, sports coaches, etc...

Are you still denying the evidence from the largest professional society of psychologists in the United States, also endorsed by the Australian Psychologist Society and the PSI here in Ireland?

gk5000 · 13-05-2015 01:52PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do role models have to be biological parents?

Obviously there can be other role models, but the parents are most involved and shall most influence the child especially in the early years - so to me its best to have a male and female role model parent.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 01:53PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Obviously there can be other role models, but the parents are most involved and shall most influence the child especially in the early years - so to me its best to have a male and female role model parent.

So you are still denying the evidence from the largest professional society of psychologists in the United States, also endorsed by the Australian Psychologist Society and the PSI here in Ireland?

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 01:54PM

languagenerd wrote: »

No woman has "the right to carry and bear a child". That's not a legal right. That's an ability, a bodily function, not prescribed by a court somewhere. Likewise, we don't have a legally-prescribed right to breathe, sleep, eat, excrete, walk, etc. You're not "being discriminated against" in that regard because no judge or government has decided that only women can have babies, that's a flawed analogy.

Marriage IS a legally-prescribed right or social institution, which is why we CAN consider it to be discriminatory and change it if we wish. Laws change all the time. The Constitution should be a living document that reflects the times we live in. It's also worth noting that the Constitution doesn't actually define "marriage" or "family" as it is.

You're against same-sex marriage, I understand that. But from your posts, you seem to be foreseeing some sort of armageddon where most marriages are same-sex, where children are forcibly taken from their biological parents and given to gay couples. That won't happen. Nothing will change for straight couples and their children. Nothing will change for 90% of the population. As for the other 10%: those gay couples already exist, they already cohabit and some already have children. They will just finally be officially recognised by society.

Genuine question: what do you think will happen on May 23rd if it's a Yes?

I think this is a social experiment where we don't know what might happen when it is enabled in law. We are trying to equate things in the name of "equality"
in my view that are simply not equal things, they are in fact completely opposite things.

I will never accept that some of the people who are at the very front of this yes campaign, as I mentioned yesterday, one individual who believes that all children should be born gender neutral, which is simply to deny that a child is born with gender specific genitalia, and another who campaigns as a man on a Monday and campaigns as a woman on a Tuesday, I will never accept that people who live their lives in such a confused and sexually muddled world, I will never accept that these strange lifestyles could ever be in any way compatible with the kind of sanity and stability that a child needs in order to grow up into a balanced and well adjusted adult, and these two individuals I'm referring to are probably the two who have the most to say when it comes to the equality they think they are entitled to.

What kind of signal is a child getting when it is told by a lesbian mother from birth that it doesn't have a gender, that it must choose what gender it wishes to be? What are we doing to a child when it's parent is a woman on a Monday and then is a man on a Tuesday and back to a woman on a Wednesday?

I'll be voting no in an attempt to put a firm
brake on all of this absolute patent nonsense.

gk5000 · 13-05-2015 01:54PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Do you think that lesbian parents raise children in an all female environments?

And that male gay parents raise them in all male environments?

Wont they still have aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers of opposite sex, sports coaches, etc...

Are you still denying the evidence from the largest professional society of psychologists in the United States, also endorsed by the Australian Psychologist Society and the PSI here in Ireland?

Again, I and the Irish people shall be voting, not the american, australian etc....

Your parents are the most influential role models. Surely that is not in dispute - be their influence good or bad.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 01:55PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

What are we doing to a child when it's parent is a woman on a Monday and then is a man on a Tuesday and back to a woman on a Wednesday?

Tell me more about this?

Can I be a superhero on a Thursday? This sounds like fun!

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 01:58PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Obviously there can be other role models, but the parents are most involved and shall most influence the child especially in the early years - so to me its best to have a male and female role model parent.

What about all those children whose due to economic necessity have one parent (usually father) working abroad? Can role modelling be time-shared?

What about single parents? Widowed parents?

Why does the role model have to be a parent???

'Best' really isn't an answer.

This 25 year long study would seem to indicate having lesbian parents is actually 'best' https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201006/25-year-long-study-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better

Personally, I think that having parent/s who listen, spend quality time, play, care for, support, cherish, discipline, love and educate is best - and gender has nothing to do with ability to carry out these requirements.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 01:58PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Again, I and the Irish people shall be voting, not the american, australian etc....

Your parents are the most influential role models. Surely that is not in dispute - be their influence good or bad.

Im referring to the academic evidence that overwhelmingly shows that same sex parenting is not inferior to opposite sex parenting. Refusing to accept this fact is the same as refusing to believe that the earth is round.

So now its grand even if the influence is bad, so long as the parents are straight?

Huntergonzo · 13-05-2015 01:59PM

gk5000 wrote: »

is there any value in a male and female role model?

If they're good parents then yes, if they're bad parents then no, the gender of the parent is irrelevant to me, the quality of the parenting is surely the most crucial factor, do you not agree?

Ps, please don't forget that voting No will not prevent homosexual couples from raising children and what do you propose to do with children who currently don't have both a male and female 'role model'? or children in the future who don't have a male and female 'role model'?

CaveCanem · 13-05-2015 01:59PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Marriage was not about children as you are claiming because there was no concept of legitimacy therefore it made no difference if a particular child was the product of married parents or not - it has no effect on their membership of the clan, their status or - if applicable - membership of the derbfine.

Nicholls, Simms, Brady, Edwards, Morgan, MacCurtain, Lennon are all wrong are they?

In patrilineal societies when a woman gets married she leaves her kin group and joins her husbands, all of her children will be assigned to the husbands kin group, not her own kin group of origin. That is why marriage existed at all and why her family of origin are compensated for her leaving and the alienation of her children through the bride price or dowry. Marriage formally marked the moving of a woman and her children to be born to a new kin group. If a man has a child out of marriage the child is still in his kin group. If a woman in kin group A has a child to a man in kin group B and is not married to him, her children can still not be members of her kin group, but his.

That's as simple as it gets. Children are central to the meaning of marriage and kinship.

Furthermore, an appeal to tradition is not a valid reason to deny people equal rights under the law in the 21st century- one could use the same 'it's traditional' argument to call for the reintroduction of slavery - after all... St Patrick was a slave..

I agree, but you can't say you are radically changing a tradition but insist it isn't changing at all like the yes side insist. If the proposal was 'to change marriage to remove the distinction of sex and rename it to 'Marriage Nua'' would it pass? How can you not be redefining marriage yet changing the traditional meaning?

seamus · 13-05-2015 02:00PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Your parents are the most influential role models. Surely that is not in dispute - be their influence good or bad.

Of course not. That's a tautology though. The people who influence you the most are the most influential.

Do you believe that children require a male and a female parent, and if so, why? What evidence bring you to this conclusion?

Let's put it this way: You have a child, and your wife sadly passes away. If your brother offered to move in with you and help you raise the child, would you turn down his offer in favour of finding some random woman off the street?

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 02:00PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

I think this is a social experiment where we don't know what might happen when it is enabled in law. We are trying to equate things in the name of "equality"
in my view that are simply not equal things, they are in fact completely opposite things.

I will never accept that some of the people who are at the very front of this yes campaign, as I mentioned yesterday, one individual who believes that all children should be born gender neutral, which is simply to deny that a child is born with gender specific genitalia, and another who campaigns as a man on a Monday and campaigns as a woman on a Tuesday, I will never accept that people who live their lives in such a confused and sexually muddled world, I will never accept that these strange lifestyles could ever be in any way compatible with the kind of sanity and stability that a child needs in order to grow up into a balanced and well adjusted adult, and these two individuals I'm referring to are probably the two who have the most to say when it comes to the equality they think they are entitled to.

What kind of signal is a child getting when it is told by a lesbian mother from birth that it doesn't have a gender, that it must choose what gender it wishes to be? What are we doing to a child when it's parent is a woman on a Monday and then is a man on a Tuesday and back to a woman on a Wednesday?

I'll be voting no in an attempt to put a firm
brake on all of this absolute patent nonsense.

This is absolutely not a homophobic post.

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 02:01PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Tell me more about this?

Can I be a superhero on a Thursday? This sounds like fun!

Welcome to an adult conversation. Do you think it is appropriate to have a child who is trying to settle into the world and figure out it's place in the world, to be exposed to such obvious gender confusion? If your child came home from school one day and said the same teacher was a man on Monday but then the same teacher presented as a woman on a Tuesday, would you consider that to be acceptable?

gravehold · 13-05-2015 02:02PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im referring to the academic evidence that overwhelmingly shows that same sex parenting is not inferior to opposite sex parenting. Refusing to accept this fact is the same as refusing to believe that the earth is round.

So now its grand even if the influence is bad, so long as the parents are straight?

There is academic evidence that says otherwise also, it's more like the big bang theory then the world is round. It's proved without a doubt the world is round tbbt is not without a doubt with may saying it's wrong also.

How parenting will be effected need more study there is not a big enought pool of research done yet

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments