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
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
Full rights for the LGBT community.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I don't see what Chinese policy concerning birth, and children has to do with whether or not the traditional family should be upheld above all other family structures.
I was raising the point that many Irish families (i can name a few) adopt from foreign countries and not just Ireland. Many asian countries have apalling conditions for children and I was answering your comment in which you states "I think we should also consider the rights of the child, as opposed to those of the adoptive parents in situations like these."
Surely a "gay" family is better than no family.The studies vary if one takes a look through them on JSTOR, or any other variety of different journal searches.
I haven't found this at all. The studies tend to have the same results all the time. If there are differences in figures then it is miniscule.The most convincing evidence I've seen in regard to this is what role a father has on a child's life, and what unique role a mother has on a child's life, from other studies.
Can you expand on this? If not for debating purposes, I would be interested to read such studies for my own benefit. Can you link me?In the past I've been in conversations regarding studies on this forum in relation to family structures. We could get into a "my study is bigger than yours" discussion, or we could merely explain our reasoning. I prefer the latter.
If that is the case, so be it, but that is simply going to end in a debate about why you think a good, conservative family with strong family values is better than my alternative family with liberal values. Surely that's been done to death and akin to asking you to prove the existence of God without sources?I never said LGBT people couldn't organise themselves into a family structure, and I never said a mother and a father were necessary. Rather what I said was that children benefit most from having a mother and a father and that we should support biological families, and families with a mother and a father.
1. The studies I have read do not agree with this statement. And without getting into studies, I do not see any difference between two men raising a child than a man and a woman.
2. We should support families that are alternative and non-biological too.I've already discussed single parents. Its not ideal in comparison to a family with a mother and a father. Many single parents are great at what they do, but I don't think many would suggest that it wouldn't be preferable if their children had an active father and mother in their lives.
I doubt that many same sex parents would suggest that it would be preferable if their children had a mother and a father in their lives.It is because it is preferable that I would support the State upholding traditional families above and beyond other family structures.
I find that very narrow-minded and slightly offensive. All families, and all of our children should be supported equally.Yes, I do. I think a biological family is better because of issues of identity that can arise in other family structures. People should always have the chance to contact, and to know their biological parents even if they themselves mightn't be so eager.
I completely agree, a child of a same-sex couple should and would have every right to meet their biological parents. In fact I don't see where your point relates to this argument at all?I don't think there is that much difference between an adoptive family with a mother and a father, and a biological family however.
There are a few things we agree on at least.
Interesting point. I would agree that these people should be supported in the interim, but that the State should ensure that IVF resources, and adoptive services are used by those who can provide a child with both a mother and a father primarily.
Perhaps the mother and father should also be white, catholic, non-ginger and have the latest car so that the children will have a better chance of being accepted in society?I agree with the former, but not the latter.
If we are to define an alternative family as a family that is not one in which a mother and a father who are married raise a child then I sincerely believe that alternative families will always exist.
There will always be single parents, there will always be gay/bisexual parents, ect. ect. ect. This will not change.Indeed, and having both a mother and a father involved in a child's life is still important.
But not necessary, and indeed not preferable in my opinion. I believe alternative families and "normal" families are equally capable of raising a child.0 -
Dr. Baltar wrote: »I was raising the point that many Irish families (i can name a few) adopt from foreign countries and not just Ireland. Many asian countries have apalling conditions for children and I was answering your comment in which you states "I think we should also consider the rights of the child, as opposed to those of the adoptive parents in situations like these."
That's fair enough, but I feel that we should uphold our responsibility to have children in families with both a mother and a father in as many cases as possible or practicable.Dr. Baltar wrote: »Surely a "gay" family is better than no family.
I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that LGBT people can't organise a family. Rather what I am saying is that we should try to ensure that 1) most families don't break apart to begin with, 2) most children grow up with both a mother and a father in their lives.Dr. Baltar wrote: »I haven't found this at all. The studies tend to have the same results all the time. If there are differences in figures then it is miniscule.
I think we're being disingenuous.Dr. Baltar wrote: »Can you expand on this? If not for debating purposes, I would be interested to read such studies for my own benefit. Can you link me?
I have cited some in the past. I don't want to bring the debate down the path of "how many studies can I find that says this" rather than actually presenting the reasoning as it appears to us. I don't see any value in such a debate, and I've been in quite a few in the past on this.Dr. Baltar wrote: »If that is the case, so be it, but that is simply going to end in a debate about why you think a good, conservative family with strong family values is better than my alternative family with liberal values. Surely that's been done to death and akin to asking you to prove the existence of God without sources?
I personally amn't interested in discussing about conservatism, what values a family teaches their kids, or anything like this. Rather I am merely talking about the benefits of the State supporting traditional families, and biological families as a structure in and of themselves.
Naturally, I find conservatism often to be the most reasonable solution, but I'm not going to deal with that on this thread. Due to the character of this discussion, it needn't involve my beliefs on other matters including the existence of God.Dr. Baltar wrote: »1. The studies I have read do not agree with this statement. And without getting into studies, I do not see any difference between two men raising a child than a man and a woman.
Then I'd advise that you look particularly into research done into the role of fathers in family situations, and the role of mothers in family situations. How they influence children in different ways as they develop. I see a difference, because I can see that mothers do have a very different role in the family than fathers and vice versa.Dr. Baltar wrote: »2. We should support families that are alternative and non-biological too.
I do think so too, but the traditional family should be regarded as best, and should be encouraged by the State.Dr. Baltar wrote: »I doubt that many same sex parents would suggest that it would be preferable if their children had a mother and a father in their lives.
I would regard the child's right as being above that of the parents. There is a philosophy behind this statement though. It is the difference between relative and objective truths.Dr. Baltar wrote: »I find that very narrow-minded and slightly offensive. All families, and all of our children should be supported equally.
I can only say that I regret any offence caused, but I do not retract my viewpoint on this. I don't intend to cause hurt. The family is something I feel is hugely important, and I feel that we shouldn't be so eager to depart so much from it. Consider it narrow-minded if you will, but I consider it of crucial importance for the State to limit the destruction of the traditional family.Dr. Baltar wrote: »I completely agree, a child of a same-sex couple should and would have every right to meet their biological parents. In fact I don't see where your point relates to this argument at all?
It does relate. It relates very much. In situations such as that of anonymous sperm donation, a child cannot be guaranteed to ever meet his or her true biological father in such a situation.Dr. Baltar wrote: »There are a few things we agree on at least.
We are both human beings in a common human experience. I'm very sure that we will share agreement on a number of issues by virtue of our mere natureDr. Baltar wrote: »Perhaps the mother and father should also be white, catholic, non-ginger and have the latest car so that the children will have a better chance of being accepted in society?
This is trying to play the card that by favouring the normative mother and father situation that it is equivalent to racism, religious hatred, and numerous other things. This is absurd. This is merely a recognition that mothers and fathers form the bedrock of the family, and that this is to continue into the future.Dr. Baltar wrote: »If we are to define an alternative family as a family that is not one in which a mother and a father who are married raise a child then I sincerely believe that alternative families will always exist.
There will always be single parents, there will always be gay/bisexual parents, ect. ect. ect. This will not change.
This can change. We can set an environment where most children are in a family with a mother and a father, even if it isn't all. We certainly shouldn't regard it as a lost cause to provide this.Dr. Baltar wrote: »But not necessary, and indeed not preferable in my opinion. I believe alternative families and "normal" families are equally capable of raising a child.
Again, I'm not sure if the evidence is in your favour. Certainly not if we are to look at evidence concerning single parent families and the affect the absence of a parent has, and research that is done into the roles that mothers and fathers both play.
I am willing to say that we are definitely going to disagree on this one.
Again, it is based on what conception of truth we have. I wouldn't be inclined to insist that all modes of family are always equal, or that truths and stances are always equal. Each form has its merits and its drawbacks. I'm willing to admit that it is very possible for an LGBT family to exist, but I would consider it as not being as effective as a family unit with a mother and a father.0 -
Before I begin, my apologies for the delay...That's fair enough, but I feel that we should uphold our responsibility to have children in families with both a mother and a father in as many cases as possible or practicable.
Personally I believe a child should be adopted by the people who would make better parents. Surely a rich, loving, middle class gay couple would make better parents than a poor drug-addicted straight couple. The gender of the parents is certainly not the most important thing in deciding who should be adopted.I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that LGBT people can't organise a family. Rather what I am saying is that we should try to ensure that 1) most families don't break apart to begin with, 2) most children grow up with both a mother and a father in their lives.
I agree with point (1 completely. The destruction of a family is both sad and heartbreaking for many people, but I must stress that it is often necessary. The introduction of divorce for example was something that this country should be very proud of. It allowed many victims of domestic abuse to leave their partner for example.
2) This is where we fundamentally disagree and I don't think there is going to be any "conversion" by either of us. I think that a child needs positive role models in it's life. Nothing more and nothing else.I have cited some in the past. I don't want to bring the debate down the path of "how many studies can I find that says this"
That is fair enough, but I would encourage those reading the thread to do the research as I believe it will be very LGB positive.rather than actually presenting the reasoning as it appears to us. I don't see any value in such a debate, and I've been in quite a few in the past on this.
Sure, no problem, but I do think we're going to end up agreeing to disagree.I personally amn't interested in discussing about conservatism, what values a family teaches their kids, or anything like this. Rather I am merely talking about the benefits of the State supporting traditional families, and biological families as a structure in and of themselves.
Coolio.Naturally, I find conservatism often to be the most reasonable solution, but I'm not going to deal with that on this thread. Due to the character of this discussion, it needn't involve my beliefs on other matters including the existence of God.
Same as above.Then I'd advise that you look particularly into research done into the role of fathers in family situations, and the role of mothers in family situations. How they influence children in different ways as they develop. I see a difference, because I can see that mothers do have a very different role in the family than fathers and vice versa.
Can you give me an overview of such research? I would certainly like to debate it with you without doing the whole "I can find more research than you".I do think so too, but the traditional family should be regarded as best, and should be encouraged by the State.
Firstly, the state has (in my opinion) no business poking it's nose into my family or anyones family.
It certainly does not have the right to look at my family and give it the thumbs up, A+ rating and a tax cut for our "perfect setup", while giving dirty looks to unmarried/single parent families.I would regard the child's right as being above that of the parents. There is a philosophy behind this statement though. It is the difference between relative and objective truths.
A child has a right to a childhood. A child has a right to be loved.
A child has a right to an education, safe environment ect.
And LGB family can provide all of this.I can only say that I regret any offence caused, but I do not retract my viewpoint on this. I don't intend to cause hurt. The family is something I feel is hugely important, and I feel that we shouldn't be so eager to depart so much from it. Consider it narrow-minded if you will, but I consider it of crucial importance for the State to limit the destruction of the traditional family.
The traditional family does not necessarily have to be "destroyed". I simply believe that we as a society need to become more open and acceptable of other forms of family to the traditional family.
I come from the traditional family - Dad works, Mam is a homemaker ect. and I would never consider my growing up to be anymore privilidged than my friends who have been brought up by single/gay parents.
Once again, accepting and embracing alternative family setups is not an attack on the traditional family.It does relate. It relates very much. In situations such as that of anonymous sperm donation, a child cannot be guaranteed to ever meet his or her true biological father in such a situation.
Then I agree that legisltation certainly needs to be enacted to cover this.We are both human beings in a common human experience. I'm very sure that we will share agreement on a number of issues by virtue of our mere nature
:cool:This is trying to play the card that by favouring the normative mother and father situation that it is equivalent to racism, religious hatred, and numerous other things. This is absurd. This is merely a recognition that mothers and fathers form the bedrock of the family, and that this is to continue into the future.
I disagree. Love is the bedrock of the family.
I do not understand why people are so fearful of that which is not the norm. When homosexuality was legalised in 1993 there was uproar. "Next we'll be marrying animals and children" is one of my favourite lines. This hasn't happened, in fact I see no downside so far to furthering of the "Gay Agenda". If you can trust it this much, why not a step further?This can change. We can set an environment where most children are in a family with a mother and a father, even if it isn't all. We certainly shouldn't regard it as a lost cause to provide this.
Once again, children should enter the home of people who make the better parents. Some same sex couples would be better parents than a lot of straight couples attempting to adopt.Again, I'm not sure if the evidence is in your favour. Certainly not if we are to look at evidence concerning single parent families and the affect the absence of a parent has, and research that is done into the roles that mothers and fathers both play.
The LGBT community may get slightly offended at what I'm about to say, and if this is the case I apologize in advance.
Most gay couples tend to be formed around one person having very "masculine" energy and the other very "feminine" energy. An example being a butch lesbian and a femme lesbian being together.
If you are worried about a child having a lack of feminine/masculine influence, I don't think that would happen especially considering that child has many other role models to turn to apart from the parents.I am willing to say that we are definitely going to disagree on this one.
Again, it is based on what conception of truth we have. I wouldn't be inclined to insist that all modes of family are always equal, or that truths and stances are always equal. Each form has its merits and its drawbacks. I'm willing to admit that it is very possible for an LGBT family to exist, but I would consider it as not being as effective as a family unit with a mother and a father.
And this is what it all comes down to. I wonder what a child of a same sex couple would say if you suggested that your family is more effective and better than his/hers. Imagine how that child would feel if you basically said that your parents were better at raising children than his/her parents not because of the love/life that your parents gave you, but simply because one of your parents has their sexual organs on the outside and one on the inside.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement