Full rights for the LGBT community.

Peanut Butter Jelly

Hey Brown Bomber, could you just answer this for me please, I'm a little confused.

Brown Bomber wrote:

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but a gay couple cannot - by definition - have children.

Is it true to say that by that definition, no straight man can "have" a child?

Or is that not your definition of "have"? Maybe you can define it.

Brown Bomber

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

Hey Brown Bomber, could you just answer this for me please, I'm a little confused.



Is it true to say that by that definition, no straight man can "have" a child?

Or is that not your definition of "have"? Maybe you can define it.

Sure. I'd be delighted to clear up this molehill-cum-mountain.

Taken out of context and using "have" to mean all things "parent" I don't agree with my own statement which you've quoted. That is to say I truly believe that a gay couple can "parent" a child and everything that goes along with this.

In context, which is in response to a statement that that there should be no argument against the ability to "parent" OR "have" a child - which makes the "having" distinct from the "parenting" leaving nothing else but the natural and biological processes of procreation - what I mean is that by defintion a gay couple (2 men or 2 women) to procreate or "have" a child TOGETHER is an impossibility.

I'm sorry if people find this offensive but it's fact. What next? Will I have the thought police clamping down on me for saying "it takes two to tango" because it is offensive to people who want to tango by themselves?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

as SW pointed out, we're having trouble seeing why some of these things are failings, and what you are basing this conclusion on.

That goes some way to explaining things. Most if not all are self-evident but I will expand on them provided you give a response as to whether you agree or disagree as to whether these issues stand and make the study sub prime with regards to what we are discussing. I'm prepared to discard any of these issues provided you give good reason and we can see what we are left with at the end.

1 cross-sectional survey,
A long-term study is far more effective

2a convenience sample
Considerably more flawed and subject to bias than a probability sample.

Australia
Obviously a study involving Irish families is more relevant than a study undertaken the other side of the world.

4aged 0-17 years.
A study that tracks these children into adulthood would inform us of any long-term effects (positive or negative)

5Parent-reported
Gay parents, universally in favour of gay rights involving themselves in a politically significant study have a motive to be biased and lie.

315 parents completed the survey
A significantly larger sample is required. Potentially that is as little as 170 households, which is not much more than a family fortunes survey.

780% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent.
We have no reason to assume that children raised by gay men and children raised by lesbians face the same challenges/advantages.

Ideally this would be a 50/50 split. Or two separate studies. 1 for gay men vs normative families and 1 for gay women


Your turn...

Delirium

How do you have a long-term study about same-sex couples that have adopted in Ireland when they can't currently adopt?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

How do you have a long-term study about same-sex couples that have adopted in Ireland when they can't currently adopt?

Pilot project, as I've outlined already.

Can I take by your silence that you don't dispute any of weaknesses I've listed of the Australian study?

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1 cross-sectional survey,
A long-term study is far more effective

2a convenience sample
Considerably more flawed and subject to bias than a probability sample.

Australia
Obviously a study involving Irish families is more relevant than a study undertaken the other side of the world.

4aged 0-17 years.
A study that tracks these children into adulthood would inform us of any long-term effects (positive or negative)

5Parent-reported
Gay parents, universally in favour of gay rights involving themselves in a politically significant study have a motive to be biased and lie.

315 parents completed the survey
A significantly larger sample is required. Potentially that is as little as 170 households, which is not much more than a family fortunes survey.

780% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent.
We have no reason to assume that children raised by gay men and children raised by lesbians face the same challenges/advantages.

Ideally this would be a 50/50 split. Or two separate studies. 1 for gay men vs normative families and 1 for gay women

The Allen study you referred to a few pages back has many of these flaws. There were problems with the sample he used, it was from the other side of the world, it didn't track children into adulthood, it wasn't 50/50. If you're not willing to meet your own standards, I don't see why anyone else should either.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your turn...

We're waiting on you to take your turn first. You're the one that wants the system to change. It's up to you to show that the change leads to better outcomes for the children involved.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Pilot project, as I've outlined already.

how will that work? Are you to organise for the children to be deliberatly bullied due to their same-sex parents and measure the results? Are single homosexuals to have their right to adopt revoked?

Can I take by your silence that you don't dispute any of weaknesses I've listed of the Australian study?

No, for the pretty much the reasons NuMarvel stated.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

how will that work?

Small scale and long-term publically funded experiment which tracks the progress of the children.

SW wrote: »

Are you to organise for the children to be deliberatly bullied due to their same-sex parents and measure the results? Are single homosexuals to have their right to adopt revoked?

No and No. To be clear I am and only ever have been talking about orphans being adopted by gay couples that they have zero relationship to.

SW wrote: »

ANo, for the pretty much the reasons NuMarvel stated.

????????????????????

But he/she didn't actually state ANY reasons at all!

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But he/she didn't actually state ANY reasons at all!

So you are reading my posts. Wonderful. Shall I take your ongoing silence as acceptance that you can't prove your way is better for adopted children?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Small scale and long-term publically funded experiment which tracks the progress of the children.

No and No. To be clear I am and only ever have been talking about orphans being adopted by gay couples that they have zero relationship to.

but how will that work? It's my understanding that same-sex couples adopting is something that has to be allowed prior to the marriage referendum. The country votes yes to marriage but they can't then adopt?
what happens with someone who adopted a child and then marries? Their partner won't be allowed adopt?

And surely the study would have to be large scale to maximise the potential for any homophobic bullying to happening seeing as that is the crux of your objection?

????????????????????

But he/she didn't actually state ANY reasons at all!

I suggest you re-read the post.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

@BB, could you describe (using the template above in Methods) a study that would be acceptable to you?

e.g

change 5 to "Indpendent health professional assessed"

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That goes some way to explaining things. Most if not all are self-evident but I will expand on them provided you give a response as to whether you agree or disagree as to whether these issues stand and make the study sub prime with regards to what we are discussing. I'm prepared to discard any of these issues provided you give good reason and we can see what we are left with at the end.

1 cross-sectional survey,
A long-term study is far more effective

2a convenience sample
Considerably more flawed and subject to bias than a probability sample.

Australia
Obviously a study involving Irish families is more relevant than a study undertaken the other side of the world.

4aged 0-17 years.
A study that tracks these children into adulthood would inform us of any long-term effects (positive or negative)

5Parent-reported
Gay parents, universally in favour of gay rights involving themselves in a politically significant study have a motive to be biased and lie.

315 parents completed the survey
A significantly larger sample is required. Potentially that is as little as 170 households, which is not much more than a family fortunes survey.

780% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent.
We have no reason to assume that children raised by gay men and children raised by lesbians face the same challenges/advantages.

Ideally this would be a 50/50 split. Or two separate studies. 1 for gay men vs normative families and 1 for gay women


Your turn...

@BB, can you expand on this a little further so that I might take it as your answer to the question above?

NuMarvel

SW wrote: »

but how will that work? It's my understanding that same-sex couples adopting is something that has to be allowed prior to the marriage referendum. The country votes yes to marriage but they can't then adopt?
what happens with someone who adopted a child and then marries? Their partner won't be allowed adopt?

That's a good point. To get true parity in the study BB proposes, gay couples will have to be allowed to adopt jointly first. And because the number of non-family adoptions is minuscule, an average of 40 per year in the entire country, it will have to happen for a VERY long time so there have been a sufficient number of adopted children raised by gay couples for the study to meet BB's criteria (specifically #6).

So in his opposition to letting gay people adopt, BB has actually proposed something that means gay couples will HAVE to be able to adopt. The aul fella is secretly on our side after all .

SW wrote: »

I suggest you re-read the post.

I think he has difficulties reading my posts, so let's direct him to (what I think to be) the relevant section:

NuMarvel wrote: »

If you're not willing to meet your own standards, I don't see why anyone else should either.

Phill Ewinn

NuMarvel wrote: »

That's a good point. To get true parity in the study BB proposes, gay couples will have to be allowed to adopt jointly first. And because the number So in his opposition to letting gay people adopt, BB has actually proposed something that means gay couples will HAVE to be able to adopt.

In a supportive environment this study should do well. How about in our current situation where bullying has risen 30%?

NuMarvel

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

In a supportive environment this study should do well. How about in our current situation where bullying has risen 30%?

It's not a case of the study doing well or not doing well. It's a case of the study that BB proposes giving us an accurate picture of outcomes when we compare adopted children raised by gay couples against adopted children raised by heterosexual couples.

Statistics about bullying are useless on their own. Outcomes are what matters. If we are to bar gay people from adoption or show preference to other applicants, then it must be shown that outcomes improve for children. A truly child centred approach demands nothing less.

marienbad

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's not a case of the study doing well or not doing well. It's a case of the study that BB proposes giving us an accurate picture of outcomes when we compare adopted children raised by gay couples against adopted children raised by heterosexual couples.

Statistics about bullying are useless on their own. Outcomes are what matters. If we are to bar gay people from adoption or show preference to other applicants, then it must be shown that outcomes improve for children. A truly child centred approach demands nothing less.

I can't believe that ye are seriously still debating this issue with BB and Phil. One is just on a wind up crusade and the other is homophobic and both will never listen to reasoned debate.

Don't encourage them.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

I suggest you re-read the post.

I have and I still see not a single objection or refutation to the 7 flaws of the Australian study.

If they are there please point them out to me and explain why they are valid.

K-9

marienbad wrote: »

I can't believe that ye are seriously still debating this issue with BB and Phil. One is just on a wind up crusade and the other is homophobic and both will never listen to reasoned debate.

Don't encourage them.

Mod:

Don't personalise the debate please, either engage with the points made or don't post at all, thank you.

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

@BB, can you expand on this a little further so that I might take it as your answer to the question above?

Yes. If you like.

So relative to the Australian study you'd want a longitudinal study with a probability sample which surveys Irish families from the cradle into adulthood with the respondents being the children themselves - supported by medical histories, social worker reports, school reports, enocunters with the law and so on. > 315 participants see here why: http://toolkit.pellinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/SampleSizeChart.png and with a 50/50 split og gay men parents/Lesbian parents.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have and I still see not a single objection or refutation to the 7 flaws of the Australian study.

If they are there please point them out to me and explain why they are valid.

here you go.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Allen study you referred to a few pages back has many of these flaws. There were problems with the sample he used, it was from the other side of the world, it didn't track children into adulthood, it wasn't 50/50. If you're not willing to meet your own standards, I don't see why anyone else should either.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

here you go.

Here I go what?
Apart from it not even being accurate it is numarvel saying "I know you are but what am I?" It's a fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

What specific flaws I have outlined and numbered previously do you object to and why?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here I go what?
Apart from it not even being accurate it is numarvel saying "I know you are but what am I?" It's a fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

What specific flaws I have outlined and numbered previously do you object to and why?

So we take one study provide by person X and another by person Y. We apply the same criteria to both and it's a fallacy?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

So we take one study provide by person X and another by person Y. We apply the same criteria to both and it's a fallacy?

I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about so I am going to press the reset button and go back to basics. Here are what I believe to be 7 issues with the recent Australian study.

Which do you agree disagree with and why?

1 cross-sectional survey,
A long-term study is far more effective

2a convenience sample
Considerably more flawed and subject to bias than a probability sample.

Australia
Obviously a study involving Irish families is more relevant than a study undertaken the other side of the world.

4aged 0-17 years.
A study that tracks these children into adulthood would inform us of any long-term effects (positive or negative)

5Parent-reported
Gay parents, universally in favour of gay rights involving themselves in a politically significant study have a motive to be biased and lie.

315 parents completed the survey
A significantly larger sample is required. Potentially that is as little as 170 households, which is not much more than a family fortunes survey.

780% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent.
We have no reason to assume that children raised by gay men and children raised by lesbians face the same challenges/advantages.

Ideally this would be a 50/50 split. Or two separate studies. 1 for gay men vs normative families and 1 for gay women

Phill Ewinn

marienbad wrote: »

I can't believe that ye are seriously still debating this issue with BB and Phil. One is just on a wind up crusade and the other is homophobic and both will never listen to reasoned debate.

Don't encourage them.

Ah, the dream of totalitarians, commies and anarchists.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1 cross-sectional survey,
A long-term study is far more effective

Doesn't invalidate the conclusions of the paper.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2a convenience sample
Considerably more flawed and subject to bias than a probability sample.

Doesn't invalidate the conclusions of the paper.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Australia
Obviously a study involving Irish families is more relevant than a study undertaken the other side of the world.

Doesn't invalidate the conclusions of the paper.

Also, Called that you would use this totally arbitrary reason to reject studies.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

4aged 0-17 years.
A study that tracks these children into adulthood would inform us of any long-term effects (positive or negative)

Do you have any studies to show that the negative effects only show up after the age of 18? No? Then:
Doesn't invalidate the conclusions of the paper.

Also, you are repeatedly harping on about the dangers of children being bullied while they are children. If this is the case, then that would show up at those ages. If not, you're moving your goalposts.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

5Parent-reported
Gay parents, universally in favour of gay rights involving themselves in a politically significant study have a motive to be biased and lie.

Any evidence this happened? No?
Doesn't invalidate the conclusions of the paper.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

315 parents completed the survey
A significantly larger sample is required. Potentially that is as little as 170 households, which is not much more than a family fortunes survey.

Doesn't invalidate the conclusions of the paper.

And how much larger of a sample is required?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

780% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent.
We have no reason to assume that children raised by gay men and children raised by lesbians face the same challenges/advantages.

Ideally this would be a 50/50 split. Or two separate studies. 1 for gay men vs normative families and 1 for gay women

Again if this is a factor, then it would show up in the study, or in some other study. It doesn't. So:
Doesn't invalidate the conclusions of the paper.


All of your points are nitpicks, gross generalisations and accusations and simply ways the paper could have been bigger or more extensive.
None of your points show that their conclusion is wrong or otherwise invalid.

Of course the study by itself does not prove the point. No one study can.
Luckily, no one on our side is basing their stance on this, or any single study.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your turn...

Ok, lets look at the source of the figure you have so often repeated.
Your claim that 1 in 5 children of homosexual couples attempt suicide comes from a book (not a paper or a study) called "Something to Tell You" (Trenchard and Warren).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91173108&postcount=1316
There's you providing the source for this number.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/01/gayrights.schools

Something To Tell You, a study of lesbian and gay teenagers, showed that one in five had attempted suicide at least once.

(Now, I assumed this was your source cause it's the only mention of this figure anywhere on the internet and you provide no other source for this number. I asked you to, but you didn't respond, so I shall take your silence to mean that you don't dispute it is the only source for your claim.)

So:
1.) It's not a survey or a study from Ireland.
2.) It was studying teenagers, so therefore doesn't address people who grew into adults.
3.) It was studying gay teens who were being bullied who were self reporting. So they would have a reason to lie and make up stuff so that the bullying would seem worse and convince people to do something about it.
4.) It was a study involving 416 people, which is far too small.

Now are you going to withdraw your claim that one in five people who are adopted by gay parents will try to kill themselves?
Or do these "flaws" not invalidate the conclusion?

So leaving those aside for now, lets look at your plan to study gay adoption.
(And also leaving aside the logical loop SW and NuMarvel pointed out)
What happens to all of the other victims of homophobic bullying in the mean time?

As you have claimed, there are many other people besides the children of gay couples who experience homophobic bullying (which you claim with push a fifth of them to try suicide). These people will exist even if gay adoption is banned and these people will always far far outweigh the numbers of children who with get gay adopted.

You agree that allowing gay adoption will result in the reduction of homophobic bullying by way of normalising homosexuality.

But if we hold off on it for the 18-20 (or whatever number you pull out of the air) years for you to get the study to satisfy yourself, that means that there will be many people who will unnecessarily suffer homophobic bullying that could have been reduced.
And all in the name of sparing a smaller number of people from homophobic bullying?

And what about the children who have been and will be adopted in Ireland by single gay people?
Why don't you think that practice should be stopped?
Why not take children away from their gay parents before any potential damage might be done?
Could it be that people's rights trump your completely unsupported (and frankly, faux) concern about potential danger?

Brown Bomber

You know the difference between sub prime and invalid right?

This is what I asked you "Most if not all are self-evident but I will expand on them provided you give a response as to whether you agree or disagree as to whether these issues stand and make the study sub prime with regards to what we are discussing."

So with that in mind if you could try again.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You know the difference between sub prime and invalid right?

This is what I asked you "Most if not all are self-evident but I will expand on them provided you give a response as to whether you agree or disagree as to whether these issues stand and make the study sub prime with regards to what we are discussing."

And this is blatant moving the goalposts.
You have been repeatedly asked to explain why you don't agree with the conclusions of the paper. You posted those "flaws" in answer.

If you don't disagree with the conclusion of the paper, then you have no point.

What you are saying is akin to "this car doesn't go as fast as a Ferrari, therefore it's useless as a car."

So do you think that the conclusions of the paper are valid and sound? Yes or No?
If you don't furnish a direct answer to this, I shall assume the answer is "yes".

And even then, none of your points show that it's "subprime" for the exact same reasons I have given.
And even then you know this is the case because you have no issue clinging to studies you like when you are shown they have the exact same "flaws".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So with that in mind if you could try again.

I seen no reason to repeat my points when you continually ignore them and the other points I make.

NuMarvel

NuMarvel wrote: »

So you are reading my posts. Wonderful. Shall I take your ongoing silence as acceptance that you can't prove your way is better for adopted children?

I'm going to take BB's continual silence as acceptance that there is no evidence that his suggestions would be better for children, and so I'm going to move on from adoption.

With the referendum confirmed for Spring next year, the issue will arise of what precise wording the Government will propose to put into the Constitution.

As we know, the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that people of the same gender can't get married. The current position is based on interpretation, so there's no specific wording or section to change. My suggestion is a new line (in bold below) added to the current text of Article 41.3.1 as follows:

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. All laws enacted by the State on a person’s eligibility to marry shall be made without distinction of sex or gender.

As I said in a different thread, this keeps it very simple, it doesn't give the State anymore powers that it already has, and the only obligation it places on the State is that marriage laws can't be restricted on the basis of sex or gender (which is what the members of the Constitutional Convention recommended). I included both sex and gender to make sure that transgender people aren't unintentionally left out, but that may be unnecessary, depending on the wording of transgender legislation.

What aspects do people think the Government needs to consider when coming up with a wording for the Constitution? Are there examples from other countries we can use or learn from?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And this is blatant moving the goalposts.

Ha! I directly quoted myself. How could that be moving the goalposts?

If you don't want to answer then don't. The 7 flaws still stand and your massive strawman and the double use of the "you too" fallacy doesn't change anything.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ha! I directly quoted myself. How could that be moving the goalposts?

If you don't want to answer then don't. The 7 flaws still stand and your massive strawman and the double use of the "you too" fallacy doesn't change anything.

I directly explained why you were moving the goalposts. You didn't answer that.
You also didn't answer the questions I gave you, so apply your own tactics, that means that you do indeed agree with the conclusions of the paper, making your "flaws" irrelevant.
You also agree that the "flaws" aren't "flaws" because you have no issue using a study which has the exact same ones.

This is in addition to your own silence showing that you know that your plan and your position would result in far more people people being subject to homophobic bullying than you think you'll spare.

The difference is I addressed your points.

aloyisious

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ah, the dream of totalitarians, commies and anarchists.

Any particular order?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I directly explained why you were moving the goalposts. You didn't answer that.

Is that the hold up? Fine. Yes. I accept the conclusions of the study with the caveat that it, along with all the others are flawed. They are illustrative but not definitive in any meaningful way.

With regards to point 4

BBC News - Childhood bullying 'damages adult life'

www.bbc.com/news/education-23756749Översätt den här sidan
The impact of bullying in childhood continues into adult life, damaging health and job prospects for victims, suggests research.

It's funny, you all accuse me of ignoring the research but as soon as we try to discuss the limitations you avoid it like the plague. 4/4 have refused to answer it directly...

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is that the hold up? Fine. Yes. I accept the conclusions of the study with the caveat that it, along with all the others are flawed. They are illustrative but not definitive in any meaningful way.

With regards to point 4

BBC News - Childhood bullying 'damages adult life'

www.bbc.com/news/education-23756749Översätt den här sidan
The impact of bullying in childhood continues into adult life, damaging health and job prospects for victims, suggests research.

It's funny, you all accuse me of ignoring the research but as soon as we try to discuss the limitations you avoid it like the plague. 4/4 have refused to answer it directly...

so why discount people younger than 18?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is that the hold up? Fine. Yes. I accept the conclusions of the study with the caveat that it, along with all the others are flawed. They are illustrative but not definitive in any meaningful way.

With regards to point 4

BBC News - Childhood bullying 'damages adult life'

www.bbc.com/news/education-23756749Översätt den här sidan
The impact of bullying in childhood continues into adult life, damaging health and job prospects for victims, suggests research.

It's funny, you all accuse me of ignoring the research but as soon as we try to discuss the limitations you avoid it like the plague. 4/4 have refused to answer it directly...

....but as outcomes are the same, bullying overall doesn't affect same sex parents children anymore than it does heterosexual parents children.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is that the hold up? Fine. Yes. I accept the conclusions of the study with the caveat that it, along with all the others are flawed. They are illustrative but not definitive in any meaningful way.

No it's just one point you've been avoiding.
So again, the conclusions are sound, so your flaws are irrelevant here.

And also again, it's not completely definitive. But we are not relying on it alone.

Can you please explain why this study is not definitive, therefore doesn't support our position, but it's ok for you to use a study that has the exact same flaws?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With regards to point 4

The impact of bullying in childhood continues into adult life, damaging health and job prospects for victims, suggests research.

You claim that the damage done is apparent in childhood. The source for your figure that one in five people who experience homophobic bullying will attempt suicide specifically surveyed teenagers. This was the damage you were harping out about.

The effects of bullying are apparent in childhood as well according to the article you just posted.

Your point is irrelevant.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's funny, you all accuse me of ignoring the research but as soon as we try to discuss the limitations you avoid it like the plague. 4/4 have refused to answer it directly...

So directly addressing the points = avoiding the points like the plague?

What do you call what you are doing for all of my points you've yet to even acknowledge exist?

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is that the hold up? Fine. Yes. I accept the conclusions of the study with the caveat that it, along with all the others are flawed. They are illustrative but not definitive in any meaningful way.

With regards to point 4

BBC News - Childhood bullying 'damages adult life'

www.bbc.com/news/education-23756749Översätt den här sidan
The impact of bullying in childhood continues into adult life, damaging health and job prospects for victims, suggests research.

It's funny, you all accuse me of ignoring the research but as soon as we try to discuss the limitations you avoid it like the plague. 4/4 have refused to answer it directly...

I'll happily attest to childhood bullying affecting a person in the long term(currently in counselling as a result of it). However with your own criteria,you would have to prevent a hell of a lot more people than same sex couples adopting. As pretty much anything has the potential to be bullied over. Basically you'd have to prevent adoption entirely as there's always the potential.

Your solution is just going to end up with more bullying for children. When you go anti-LGBT because of bullies, you endanger teenagers who are gay who society views there to be a need to discriminate against. The blame should be directed at the bullies and their parents. Basically you should be calling for anti-bullying schemes rather than using bullies to dictate adoption policy.

PopePalpatine

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ah, the dream of totalitarians, commies and anarchists.

Do you actually have a point?

aloyisious

I see Francis Fitzgerald told the UN Human Rights Committee that Section 37 of the Constitution had been "unfair" and had caused "a chilling effect" on members of the LGBT community who had sought work in schools, as well as hospitals and other state-run institutions. - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/bill-on-way-to-prevent-bias-against-gay-teachers-30431299.html#sthash.cq5Oa4mi.dpuf

Thing is: Can a Gov't bill supersede what's written in the Constitution (section 37), even as a temporary measure, given this:........
The law of Ireland consists of constitutional, statute and common law. The highest law in the State is the Constitution of Ireland, from which all other law derives its authority?

Am I right in thinking that the Gov't is going to come to us to change/delete Section 37 by way of a referendum (regardless of any bill) or will the bill be the thing put before the people for decision by way of a referendum?

oscarBravo

Section 37? The Constitution doesn't have Sections, it has Articles, and I can't see how Article 37 applies.

aloyisious

oscarBravo wrote: »

Section 37? The Constitution doesn't have Sections, it has Articles, and I can't see how Article 37 applies.

Ta oscarBravo: Either the minister or the Indo got it wrong.... Ms Fitzgerald stated in her opening remarks to the UN Human Rights Committee that Section 37 of the Constitution had been "unfair" and had caused "a chilling effect" on members of the LGBT community who had sought work in schools, as well as hospitals and other state-run institutions.

Section 37 is the provision that allows religious-owned institutions to discriminate against employees or prospective employees if the institution deems it necessary to protect its "religious ethos".
- See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/bill-on-way-to-prevent-bias-against-gay-teachers-30431299.html#sthash.cq5Oa4mi.PJWFGdF6.dpuf .

I googled Section 37 of Irish Govt Acts and it seem's it's this act... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishstatutebook.ie%2F1998%2Fen%2Fact%2Fpub%2F0021%2Fsec0037.html&ei=e4nFU5T4CYTH7AbY4YDABg&usg=AFQjCNF42lXI8QWs-20GVI7KR_net9e3wQ

and the change mentioned is this.... Proposed amendment to section 37 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2011.

Annasopra

aloyisious wrote: »

Either the minister or the Indo got it wrong .

The Minister wouldnt make a mistake like that

aloyisious

I had a Facebook Msg from family about a gent (Scott Esk) in Oklahoma (of all states) Seem's he's running for office as a GOP Rep in the State House.

I had a closer look at his on-line history. This address gives a greater account, and he use''s a Facebook debate with Adam Bates to use a Papal quote as giving him reason for his thoughts. The Adams/Esk debate address: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.com%2Fthe-last-word%2Fgop-candidate-stone-gay-people&ei=NLzHU7v4AtOy7AahoYHYDA&usg=AFQjCNEUdfqV1DtGnqd3hJsUZC_1Rqu0TQ The last para in it reads:-
Esk’s campaign site states that he is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and for “traditional family values.” The site also tells visitors that Esk believes citizens’ rights “come from God – not from government.”

WHEN you open it, scroll down to the Para just above the Bates/Esk Facebook debate - and at the end of the Para you'll see the words.......... BUT LINKS TO THE FULL THREAD. Clicking on those words opens up another Facebook debate below a picture of Pope Francis and his quote "who am I to judge gay people?". It seem's Scott is using something in/from the Pope's statement (or his own personal reading of what the Pope said) to base his statements about stoning gays to death (Leviticus 20).

aloyisious

I expected that some-one on what's termed "the Christian Right" would make a statement about Christianity being the only faith that should be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the law. I expected it to be in relation to marriage and the issuer to say that Christian Marriage is the only one that should be seen as legitimate legally, all other versions (religious or civil) being false or worthless here in Ireland. Well Bryan Fischer in the U.S. has made it. He hasn't mentioned the other big non-christian religion in the U.S. in his statement but the elephant is too large not too see it, let alone the smaller religious groups who have their own religious marriage rites recognized in law.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/08/05/afa-president-freedom-of-religion-only-applies-to-christians/

aloyisious

Now this is sport as I like it to be. http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/missouri-students-form-human-barricade-stop-westboro-baptists-picketing-michael-sam170214...

aloyisious

Umm, there seem's to be a snag with a US Federal Appeals Curt ruling in Virginia, USA, agreeing with a lower Federal Court ruling striking down the bar on Same-Sex marriage there. After those rulings, state officials were ready to roll with SSM's Thursday. However an appeal was brought to a USSC member & he took it to the entire USSC which then ordered a stay on SSM in Virginia. There's no mention of who took the appeal to USSC or what the grounds are.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/08/20/us-supreme-court-stays-same-sex-marriages-in-virginia/

aloyisious

Ah, 1pm RTE Radio 1 news. Albert's Reynold's Minister for Justice Maire Geoghegan-Quinn is praising him for (along with her) de-criminalizing homseuality, despite the fact that it probably went against his taste, but that he recognized that it was the right thing to do.

aloyisious

And I thought the Westboro family was bad for the health..... http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/st-louis-officer-suspended-after-anti-gay-speech-released230814

Slot Machine

Now watch as the usual sorts come out of the woodwork, wailing about him being denied freedom of speech while utterly unable to understand that his views would prevent him from carrying out his duties in an unbiased manner.

Nodin

aloyisious wrote: »

And I thought the Westboro family was bad for the health..... http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/st-louis-officer-suspended-after-anti-gay-speech-released230814

That was a weird rant, by any standard.

DarkyHughes

From the time of the French Revolution the notion of Equality has been a cornerstone of Republicanism. All real Republicans do support the rights of all people to be treated as equals before the law, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, colour or gender. There is no such thing as a little bit of equality. You either support equality or you don't.

In the Spring of 2015 voters in the Twenty-Six Counties will take part in a referendum on the issue of marriage equality. With all of the main political parties urging a YES vote and opinion polls indicating widespread support for marriage equality it seems that change is on the way in the Twenty-Six Counties.

In the occupied Six Counties, however, the forces of conservatism and unionism continue to deny the LGBT community their most basic rights. Those who treat their fellow human beings as 'lesser', and discriminate against them on that basis, must be continually challenged and exposed for the bigots that they are.

aloyisious

@Darky, don't know if you heard the speeches at the march yesterday (sound's like you did) the bit about the south being a republic was mentioned with ref the present state of equality here, showing it up as being an incomplete republic.