Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Are working with or against you spouse/OH

2

Comments

  • #52
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    This is why people don't waste their time posting research on people like you.

    You haven't posted any research only a link to the Washington Post which is behind a pay wall and based on the publication I have an good idea of the content of the article. The data on this is out, there is over 70 years worth of research on the topic. There is nothing to debate here.


  • #53
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    You haven't posted any research only a link to the Washington Post which is behind a pay wall and based on the publication I have an good idea of the content of the article. The data on this is out, there is over 70 years worth of research on the topic. There is nothing to debate here.

    It's a link to an article discussing the research that was done by economists Deni Mazrekaj, Kristof de Witte and Sofie Cabus of Belgian university KU Leuven as well as a 2014 study from Australia.

    If you want to know more about those studies, YOU go find more details. I'm not doing the work for you. I think I'll go with more recent data and research than whatever you're ascribing to from 70 years ago.


  • #54
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    It's a link to an article discussing the research that was done by economists Deni Mazrekaj, Kristof de Witte and Sofie Cabus of Belgian university KU Leuven as well as a 2014 study from Australia.

    If you want to know more about those studies, YOU go find more details. I'm not doing the work for you. I think I'll go with more recent data and research than whatever you're ascribing to from 70 years ago.

    It's not from 70 years ago, it's 70 years of data.


  • #55
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    It's not from 70 years ago, it's 70 years of data.

    Starting 70 years ago. :rolleyes:


  • #56
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Is a direct link to the National Institute of Health more to your liking?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091994/

    "This article includes our assessment of the literature, focusing on those studies, reviews and books published within the past decade. We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families."


  • #57
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    How about to a link from Cornell University, citing 75 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children, and the published findings. Oldest I can see-you'll love this-going back to 1980.

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/


  • #58
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    How about to a link from Cornell University, citing 75 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children, and the published findings. Oldest I can see-you'll love this-going back to 1980.

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

    Stop. You're just digging the hole deeper and trying to manufacture an argument and subsequent phoney outrage where you will appoint yourself the victim. Not interested.

    The research is done, the data is in and the results conclusive.


  • #59
    lozenges
    Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭lozenges


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Stop. You're just digging the hole deeper and trying to manufacture an argument and subsequent phoney outrage where you will appoint yourself the victim. Not interested.

    The research is done, the data is in and the results conclusive.

    Would you like to provide a link to the data seeing as it's so conclusive?


  • #60
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    lozenges wrote: »
    Would you like to provide a link to the data seeing as it's so conclusive?

    Will I make that "peer reviewed" aswell?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    How about to a link from Cornell University, citing 75 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children, and the published findings. Oldest I can see-you'll love this-going back to 1980.

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

    Dude there's literally no point. OP starts threads with the very obvious intention of getting into conflict. I won't say "getting into arguments" because as we can all see, they don't actually argue.

    Just a periodic need to type "you're wrong you're stupid this is the kind of stuff I hate" at people, and they've figured out that variations on "since I've moved back to Ireland I've noticed this stupid thing about Ireland. Also some vaguely gendered stuff. And if people aren't being responsive enough I'll throw in something more incendiary like gay marriage" pretty much always gets that need met in AH.

    Watch now, I'll be accused of some ad nausea ad homino attack or something :D


  • #62
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Dominic Dry Sirloin wrote: »
    Dude there's literally no point. OP starts threads with the very obvious intention of getting into conflict. I won't say "getting into arguments" because as we can all see, they don't actually argue.

    Just a periodic need to type "you're wrong you're stupid this is the kind of stuff I hate" at people, and they've figured out that variations on "since I've moved back to Ireland I've noticed this stupid thing about Ireland. Also some vaguely gendered stuff. And if people aren't being responsive enough I'll throw in something more incendiary like gay marriage" pretty much always gets that need met in AH.

    Watch now, I'll be accused of some ad nausea ad homino attack or something :D

    I never raised or even mentioned gay marriage and the only reason it went there is because you and others brought it there. The thread isn't even about that but some people have decided to go there and make the issue about themselves so they can get offended and play the victim a bit longer. I'm not interested and not taking the bait. If you want to have a conversation about gay marriage go and start a new thread.


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    TLDR I'm sorry but I got two sentences in and I couldn't go any further.

    So the cop out is complete then. As expected.

    Thankfully some of us _have_ put the time into subjects like this and are quite well informed on the topic. And I can tell you that there are many workable and viable templates by which relationships work. In terms of child rearing. Finance splitting. Work load splitting. And more.

    Aside from from the obvious caveat of Single Parenting which seems to in general suffer the worst - none of the other configurations seem any more or less viable than any other. They are all quite workable.

    So when someone says "This is what works for me" and the best you can do is screech "Relationships dont work that way - go find the evidence for this yourself" then you really are pushing nonsense.
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    most likely no matter what evidence you are presented probably you will try and explain it away with anecdotes and personal experience.

    Nope - that is something I never do. But I see that when coping out it is much easier to imagine and make believe how I will respond to evidence - rather than bother to present any (mainly cause you got none) and actually find out how I will respond to it.

    But as I said - I have likely read anything you are likely to post and cite anyway long before you have.
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    I just rely on the data. Of which there is alot.

    Not in a single one of your posts so far there ain't.
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    The thread isn't even about that but some people have decided to go there and make the issue about themselves so they can get offended and play the victim a bit longer.

    I can not see a single person getting offended at all. I know I certainly ain't. What you need to get hip to however is that I know this particular subject quite well. Both because of personal interest in it - and because when getting into my own particular slightly unusual relationship I felt the need to research it heavily to be sure I knew what I was getting myself into.

    So rather than being offended at your nonsense - which I am far from - I am using you as a welcome platform from which to show anyone who happens to read the thread - yourself included - just what baseless outdated nonsense you are pedalling.

    I am not offended by you. I am happily using you. And you're making it real easy with your bait and retreat approach to the conversation :)


  • #64
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So the cop out is complete then. As expected.

    Thankfully some of us _have_ put the time into subjects like this and are quite well informed on the topic. And I can tell you that there are many workable and viable templates by which relationships work. In terms of child rearing. Finance splitting. Work load splitting. And more.

    Aside from from the obvious caveat of Single Parenting which seems to in general suffer the worst - none of the other configurations seem any more or less viable than any other. They are all quite workable.

    So when someone says "This is what works for me" and the best you can do is screech "Relationships dont work that way - go find the evidence for this yourself" then you really are pushing nonsense.



    Nope - that is something I never do. But I see that when coping out it is much easier to imagine and make believe how I will respond to evidence - rather than bother to present any (mainly cause you got none) and actually find out how I will respond to it.

    But as I said - I have likely read anything you are likely to post and cite anyway long before you have.



    Not in a single one of your posts so far there ain't.



    I can not see a single person getting offended at all. I know I certainly ain't. What you need to get hip to however is that I know this particular subject quite well. Both because of personal interest in it - and because when getting into my own particular slightly unusual relationship I felt the need to research it heavily to be sure I knew what I was getting myself - and all our potential kids too - into.

    So rather than being offended at your nonsense - which I am far from - I am using you as a welcome platform from which to show anyone who happens to read the thread - yourself included - just what baseless outdated nonsense you are pedalling.

    I am not offended by you. I am happily using you. And you're making it real easy with your bait and retreat approach to the conversation :)

    So just to clarify, do you actually have kids?


  • #65
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    I never raised or even mentioned gay marriage and the only reason it went there is because you and others brought it there. The thread isn't even about that but some people have decided to go there and make the issue about themselves so they can get offended and play the victim a bit longer. I'm not interested and not taking the bait. If you want to have a conversation about gay marriage go and start a new thread.

    No one is talking about gay marriage, we are talking about raising children in non-heterosexual homes.

    I think you'll find you did bring it actually:
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Well actually you couldn't be more wrong. There is a proven tried and tested template upon which successful relationships function, particularly when it comes to children in those relationships. It involves one father and one mother in a stable supportive relationship not divvying up the workload based on salary levels and economies of scale.


  • #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    So just to clarify, do you actually have kids?

    Three of a planned 4 kids yes. The plan was always they would have 2 kids each. They are 9, 5, and new born. We plan to have one more and then the tubes are getting decimated beyond use :) We are absolutely stopping at 4.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Dominic Dry Sirloin wrote: »
    Dude there's literally no point. OP starts threads with the very obvious intention of getting into conflict. I won't say "getting into arguments" because as we can all see, they don't actually argue.

    Just a periodic need to type "you're wrong you're stupid this is the kind of stuff I hate" at people, and they've figured out that variations on "since I've moved back to Ireland I've noticed this stupid thing about Ireland. Also some vaguely gendered stuff. And if people aren't being responsive enough I'll throw in something more incendiary like gay marriage" pretty much always gets that need met in AH.

    Watch now, I'll be accused of some ad nausea ad homino attack or something :D
    Stateofyou wrote: »
    No one is talking about gay marriage, there is talk about raising children in non-heterosexual homes.

    I think you'll find you did bring it up actually:

    Wrong and where in my post do I refer to gay marriage or are you just chomping at the bit to put words in my mouth so you can get offended. Seriously.


  • #68
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Three of a planned 4 kids yes. The plan was always they would have 2 kids each. They are 9, 5, and new born. We plan to have one more and then the tubes are getting decimated beyond use :) We are absolutely stopping at 4.

    I'm not saying I don't believe you but I have my doubts.


  • #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    I'm not saying I don't believe you but I have my doubts.

    Thankfully it is an internet forum and I neither want nor require your belief. But if you are going to doubt the answer to every question you bother to ask - it is a wonder you bother to ask them in the first place :) A rather unusual behaviour to say the least. Like starting a thread on a subject you do not actually appear to want to hear answers to because you have already decided in your own fantasy world how relationships do and do not work.

    For someone with no kids however - I seem to have made a serious number of posts talking about them and what I do with them and how and when :)

    Now that we are done talking about me - if you want to stop derailing your own thread and return to the topic any time soon rather than keep running away from it - I am ready.


  • #70
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Wrong and where in my post do I refer to gay marriage or are you just chomping at the bit to put words in my mouth so you can get offended. Seriously.

    I literally said "No one is talking about gay marriage, there is talk about raising children in non-heterosexual homes."

    You're putting words in your own mouth and now mine. To avoid that all you have to do is read posts properly.


  • #71
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    I never raised or even mentioned gay marriage and the only reason it went there is because you and others brought it there. The thread isn't even about that but some people have decided to go there and make the issue about themselves so they can get offended and play the victim a bit longer. I'm not interested and not taking the bait. If you want to have a conversation about gay marriage go and start a new thread.

    No. Wrong. There's decades of proof. Google it yourself. Proof. Wrong. Yourself google. "Peer review".

    Am I doing it right? Feels like I'm doing it right.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    I work for her.


  • #73
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thankfully it is an internet forum and I neither want nor require your belief. But if you are going to doubt the answer to every question you bother to ask - it is a wonder you bother to ask them in the first place :) A rather unusual behaviour to say the least. Like starting a thread on a subject you do not actually appear to want to hear answers to because you have already decided in your own fantasy world how relationships do and do not work.

    For someone with no kids however - I seem to have made a serious number of posts talking about them and what I do with them and how and when :)

    Now that we are done talking about me - if you want to stop derailing your own thread and return to the topic any time soon rather than keep running away from it - I am ready.

    Ready for what, you completely refuse to accept the facts. How can you talk to someone like that?


  • #74
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Dominic Dry Sirloin wrote: »
    No. Wrong. There's decades of proof. Google it yourself. Proof. Wrong. Yourself google. "Peer review".

    Am I doing it right? Feels like I'm doing it right.

    No quite the opposite actually. You contributed nothing to this thread other than to pass remarks about me. Absolutely nothing.


  • #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Ready for what, you completely refuse to accept the facts. How can you talk to someone like that?

    You have not shown any facts. You have just claimed there is a lot of facts and then run away repeatedly when asked for them.


  • #76
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You have not shown any facts. You have just claimed there is a lot of facts and then run away repeatedly when asked for them.

    Sorry but I'm not going to engage in a tit for tat pissing contest over some woke articles whereby the outcome is predetermined and they work their way back from there. Whatever you choose to do is your business but I don't have to accept the alternate reality where facts aren't facts anymore because someone might get triggered. The reality is that the data has been collaborated on this for 70 years and the findings are conclusive.


  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Sorry but I'm not going to engage in a tit for tat pissing contest over some woke articles whereby the outcome is predetermined and they work their way back from there.

    Since I never asked you for any such thing, nor did I offer you any such thing, you are really going full blown fantasy land on this cop out of yours.
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Whatever you choose to do is your business but I don't have to accept the alternate reality where facts aren't facts anymore because someone might get triggered.

    Which facts are these now exactly? Once again I have to point out you have not actually offered any yet. You offered an opinion so far that is all. An opinion that is not backed up by a multitude of counter examples in our society. No actual facts that I have seen yet. What exactly do you think is a fact and what supports it?
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    The reality is that the data has been collaborated on this for 70 years and the findings are conclusive.

    No such data exists it seems. You are making it up and not showing any of it. You were called on it - now you are trying to bluff your way out of a whole and I am at least enjoying the laugh :)


  • #78
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Since I never asked you for any such thing, nor did I offer you any such thing, you are really going full blown fantasy land on this cop out of yours.



    Which facts are these now exactly? Once again I have to point out you have not actually offered any yet. You offered an opinion so far that is all. An opinion that is not backed up by a multitude of counter examples in our society. No actual facts that I have seen yet. What exactly do you think is a fact and what supports it?

    No such data exists it seems. You are making it up and not showing any of it. You were called on it - now you are trying to bluff your way out of a whole and I am at least enjoying the laugh :)

    Nothing to bluff my way out of. You haven't even put forward a position so not sure what you're referring to exactly. I can do this all day, the data and facts are on my side.


  • #79
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Nothing to bluff my way out of. You haven't even put forward a position so not sure what you're referring to exactly. I can do this all day, the data and facts are on my side.

    I am interested to know about the "data and facts" too. I hope to help show some of the data I know about too and get in on this one. Can you let me know some of it? I had a LONG LONG conversation about this very topic on another thread ages ago with some of the users who are posting here. So I would love to know if some new "data and facts" have come to light?


  • #80
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Nothing to bluff my way out of. You haven't even put forward a position so not sure what you're referring to exactly. I can do this all day, the data and facts are on my side.

    hey might be - if you would show some of it we would find out wouldnt we

    But since you can not even keep up on the discussion here I can refresh you.

    My position is that there are many ways to divvie up house work - many ways to divvie up income - many ways to form a relationship with different people genders and numbers - and they are all viable. Relationships can and do work in all these different ways. I gave you the example of my own life as a case in point.

    Your position in response to that was merely to screech that "relationships do not work like that" and make some vague claim about one man and one woman and children that is not even clear. Neither of these claims however have you backed up with anything at all - despite claiming there is lots to back it up with.

    Caught up again yet?


  • #81
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Tickers - you have claimed multiple times now, that you have data ( 70 years worth of it even!!), either prove it, or drop it.

    No more of this, I have it, but you just have to believe me posting.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am interested to know about the "data and facts" too. I hope to help show some of the data I know about too and get in on this one. Can you let me know some of it? I had a LONG LONG conversation about this very topic on another thread ages ago with some of the users who are posting here. So I would love to know if some new "data and facts" have come to light?



    Good to see some actual data being posted by someone. In fact there have been a small number of studies showing that some children in such families actually fare better. But not so many. The majority of the evidence suggests they are pretty much on an equal par/footing with each other.

    What is quite difficult though are the studies that show that single women fare worse as parents. Which is quite often the case in such studies. However the results are often presented not as saying single parents have it worse..... but as saying that the children need a male presence, role model, or gender in the house. Which is clearly not what the studies actually tell us.

    The sample size and demographic of that and other studies you want to rely on is not good enough to make reliable conclusions. I think the study even refers to that.


  • #83
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    The sample size and demographic of that and other studies you want to rely on is not good enough to make reliable conclusions. I think the study even refers to that.

    Who said I want to rely on it? I said it was good to see something is being posted here. But that there are many OTHER studies either backing up this one or showing no real level of disparity between the types.

    It is never a good idea to rely on a single study if it is possible. Multiple studies and meta analysis and so forth are generally a better way to go. Especially when measuring complex outcomes against complex inputs.

    However it is interesting that while reply to my post you replied solely to the bit that was directed at another user entirely. You appear to have missed (ignored?) the part directed at you.


  • #84
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Who said I want to rely on it? I said it was good to see something is being posted here. But that there are many OTHER studies either backing up this one or showing no real level of disparity between the types.

    It is never a good idea to rely on a single study if it is possible. Multiple studies and meta analysis and so forth are generally a better way to go. Especially when measuring complex outcomes against complex inputs. The very fact that I asked you directly if you are aware of NEW material shows straight up in fact that I was not "relying on" anything in fact. Otherwise why would I be requiring more?

    However it is interesting that while reply to my post you replied solely to the bit that was directed at another user entirely. You appear to have missed (ignored?) the part directed at you.

    “Something something meta analysis” I honestly don’t know what your question is or what your point is exactly. Your diction is very difficult to follow, can you repeat the point or question you want me to answer please?


  • #85
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    [Deleted User] wrote: »

    My position is that there are many ways to divvie up house work - many ways to divvie up income - many ways to form a relationship with different people genders and numbers - and they are all viable. Relationships can and do work in all these different ways. I gave you the example of my own life as a case in point.


    That assumption is questionable. It can happen and it can happen very well and some people do it but I know other people who have been traumatised because the relationship wasn’t stable enough.


  • #86
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    “Something something meta analysis” I honestly don’t know what your question is or what your point is exactly. Your diction is very difficult to follow, can you repeat the point or question you want me to answer please?

    I am not sure your inability to understand equates to my inability to write clearly to be honest. But I am happy to rephrase the question in a simpler format.

    You claimed there is 70 years of data backing up your position. I am asking you whether you could refer me specifically to the more recent examples from that data set. Since I had a deep conversation on this topic a few years ago, I am curious if anything new has come to light more recently.

    The link you replied to me replying to for example was a comprehensive review of a lot of literature if you actually read it. In fact if you search it specifically for the word "update" you will see they updated it in light of new findings. And if you search it specifically for the word "consensus" you will see their conclusions about what ALL of the evidence currently points to. Neither of these things seem to be matching your claims here.

    So perhaps you are aware of something more recent? Or anything that contradicts their conclusions? Either would be interesting.


  • #87
    Bigbagofcans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Bigbagofcans


    This thread has become unbearable. Can we please get back on topic?


  • #88
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Bigbagofcans wrote: »
    This thread has become unbearable. Can we please get back on topic?

    Absolutely, though much of the discussion above pertains to the topic directly at times and tangentially at others. So I feel your pain.

    I guess the topic is how do you divide home life in a relationship, and does/should the money from your day job factor into that?

    I think for me: no.

    Full time employed on a relatively decent salary. My partner is freelance in an industry that does not pay amazing rates. So there is a disparity of earnings.

    The idea my job being more lucrative means I should get a proportionally easier ride in home life is not a mentality that appeals to me. The mileage of others clearly varies on that however.


  • #89
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Bigbagofcans wrote: »
    This thread has become unbearable. Can we please get back on topic?

    Thank you. This is exactly what I was talking about. Some posters seem intent on dragging this conversation into some type of debate about gay marriage.


  • #90
    topper75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    Let all these reported woes be a salutary lesson to those thinking of marrying: choose a whole, life is too short to be involved with a half person.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    Thank you. This is exactly what I was talking about. Some posters seem intent on dragging this conversation into some type of debate about gay marriage.

    Relieved to hopefully be let off the hook in proving an absurd claim, that even a Mod asked you to basically put up or shut up? :pac: And for the second time, for the record, you brought up that "There is a proven tried and tested template upon which successful relationships function, particularlywhen it comes to children in those relationships. It involves one father and one mother in a stable supportive relationship..."

    The debate isn't about gay marriage. That is a very disingenuous comment, and you know it.

    Issue was taken with your statement, yet you will provide no proof of that claim that you say has been well established over 70 years.

    The issue some have with that statement is that contrary to your claim, research actually shows there is not just one template. Same sex gender parents are equally successful in rearing children as heterosexual parents are (and some outcomes show they fare even better within the latter) according to researched outcomes.

    Regardless of gender, spouses and parents working together to maintain a stable and loving environment free from major resentment is going to be healthiest for all.


  • #92
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Relieved to hopefully be let off the hook in proving an absurd claim, that even a Mod asked you to basically put up or shut up? :pac: And for the second time, for the record, you brought up that "There is a proven tried and tested template upon which successful relationships function, particularlywhen it comes to children in those relationships. It involves one father and one mother in a stable supportive relationship..."

    The debate isn't about gay marriage. That is a very disingenuous comment, and you know it.

    Issue was taken with your statement, yet you will provide no proof of that claim that you say has been well established over 70 years.

    The issue some have with that statement is that contrary to your claim, research actually shows there is not just one template. Same sex gender parents are equally successful in rearing children as heterosexual parents are (and some outcomes show they fare even better within the latter) according to researched outcomes.

    Regardless of gender, spouses and parents working together to maintain a stable and loving environment free from major resentment is going to be healthiest for all.

    OMG the mod told me so I must be wrong. So are you suggesting that having a mother and father in a stable relationship is not a suitable environment to raise children. I'm confused what part of that do you have an issue with?


  • #93
    lozenges
    Registered Users Posts: 290 ✭✭lozenges


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    So are you suggesting that having a mother and father in a stable relationship is not a suitable environment to raise children. I'm confused what part of that do you have an issue with?

    No. They're saying that it's not the only suitable environment. But you know that...


  • #94
    andekwarhola
    Registered Users Posts: 4,639 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    Splitting 50/50 isn't always fair. We don't have a joint account - except for a college/whatever account for the kids - we've always had separate accounts. My wife works part time so I pay the majority of total household outgoings.

    My wife does more than me on the housework and cooking front but I always did more children stuff like extracurricular stuff or weekend care (my wife often works weekends). It about finding a balance you're both OK with, not what other people think is suitable.


  • #95
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    OMG the mod told me so I must be wrong. So are you suggesting that having a mother and father in a stable relationship is not a suitable environment to raise children. I'm confused what part of that do you have an issue with?

    You're not confused, you're deliberately disingenuous.

    The mod didn't insinuate you were right or wrong. The mod told you what the rest of us are saying or thinking: prove your point already.

    It's possible to simply say that you hadn't thought of same sex parents when you wrote that earlier comment, and you'd like to amend that to include them, in light of well established research. Or do you have too much pride to admit when you make an inaccurate statement? You won't be flogged for it, in fact I'm sure many would appreciate it and hold you in higher regard. This digging your heels in stubbornly is what reflects poorly.


  • #96
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    You're not confused, you're deliberately disingenuous.

    The mod didn't insinuate you were right or wrong. The mod told you what the rest of us are saying or thinking: prove your point already.

    It's possible to simply say that you hadn't thought of same sex parents when you wrote that earlier comment, and you'd like to amend that to include them, in light of well established research. Or do you have too much pride to admit when you make an inaccurate statement? You won't be flogged for it, in fact I'm sure many would appreciate it and hold you in higher regard. This digging your heels in stubbornly is what reflects poorly.

    There is no well established research when it comes to same sex parenting because there isn't enough high quality data to make that assertion.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Excuse any typos - I have just under 4 minutes to type this :)
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    That assumption is questionable.

    Not really because you then go on to say -
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    It can happen and it can happen very well and some people do it

    - which is what my point has been from start to finish. There are other ways to do it and they can work very well. That is all I have been saying! Yet when I explained how it works _for me_ you screeched that "relationships don't work that way". So you directly contradict yourself. The simple fact is some relationships do work that way. Quite well. That is all I have been saying - literally.

    Here however -
    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    but I know other people who have been traumatised because the relationship wasn’t stable enough.

    - we are totally in 100% agreement. No relationship type is perfect - even the one you might promote. They all have many many examples of failure - even to the point some people never get over it entirely.

    The "tried and tested" standard you go on about has the majority of examples of failure. Not because it is worse - but simply because it is the most common type so there will be more examples of it crashing and burning.

    I do not think anyone here claimed any given template is perfect or never fails. I certainly have not. Has anyone?


  • #98
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Excuse any typos - I have just under 4 minutes to type this :)

    Not really because you then go on to say -

    - which is what my point has been from start to finish. There are other ways to do it and they can work very well. That is all I have been saying! Yet when I explained how it works _for me_ you screeched that "relationships don't work that way". So you directly contradict yourself. The simple fact is some relationships do work that way. Quite well. That is all I have been saying - literally.

    Here however -

    - we are totally in 100% agreement. No relationship type is perfect - even the one you might promote. They all have many many examples of failure - even to the point some people never get over it entirely.

    The "tried and tested" standard you go on about has the majority of examples of failure. Not because it is worse - but simply because it is the most common type so there will be more examples of it crashing and burning.

    I do not think anyone here claimed any given template is perfect or never fails. I certainly have not. Has anyone?

    You cannot take individual cases and say "I know four men and a dog who have 2 kids and they have a great life" and then try and use that to make the broad argument. Yes there are non traditional families that work but as a general assumption, if you were to place a child in care with a family, a traditional married mother and father is still considered the gold standard which is backed up by the data.


  • #99
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Caroline Jealous Tart wrote: »
    if you were to place a child in care with a family, a traditional married mother and father is still considered the gold standard which is backed up by the data.

    Could you show some of that data please? Specifically...... if possible........ anything more recent, or anything that contradicts the studies already linked to in the thread?


  • #100
    R.F.
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭R.F.


    Marissa Disgusting Seller wrote: »
    We both earn our salaries, paid into our own accounts and spend/save as we each want with bills Split 50/50. We have a joint account but would never even enter our heads to get our salaries paid into it as my salary is mine and hers is hers. We used to lodge some money into the joint account each money to cover bills and shopping etc but now with Revolut it’s almost redundant. If I pay for the shopping I send a split bill request to my wife and she sends me on the money and vice versa.

    Outside of shared expanses we look after our own finances individually, have our own savings accounts, own investments etc. I’d hate this all money goes into one joint account way some couples do things, just wouldn’t be for us.

    Each to their own but I cannot imagine sending my wife a split bill request.

    We have always been joint account and everything I own is hers and vice versa
    Deleted User wrote: »
    There is three of us in the relationship not two .

    Was this bit lost on everyone with this guy? :confused:


  • #101
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    R.F. wrote: »
    Each to their own but I cannot imagine sending my wife a split bill request.

    We have always been joint account and everything I own is hers and vice versa



    Was this bit lost on everyone with this guy? :confused:

    No, they talk about it constantly.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement