Full rights for the LGBT community.

aDeener

sensibleken wrote: »

unless Im very much mistaken I believe the bill does not give the same rights as civil marriage. adoption for example

i can't see why there is an issue with solving the inheritance rights and domestic violence problems in particular. what possible reasons could there be for them to not be the same as opposite sex marriages? im sure everyone understands, whilst may not agree, to people having reservations about adoption, but those 2 straight forward

sceptre

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many members have expressed reservations due to the absence of a get-out-clause for registrars opposed to the bill on religious grounds. Seymour Crawford being the most vocal at the moment.

And did Seymour Crawford indicate to the registrar or Ceann Comhairle that he'd like to vote against the bill? He can be as vocal as he wants but his vote is his vote.

As with the stag hunting bill, what these guys say on their local radio stations (or our national ones) doesn't matter - with an Oireachtas seat they're constitutionally permitted to lay down standard opposition or formal opposition to anything that comes before the House (it's not that difficult to do). If they don't do that, then there isn't a vote. Because if they don't do that, there isn't a need for one.

Iwasfrozen

sceptre wrote: »

And did Seymour Crawford indicate to the registrar or Ceann Comhairle that he'd like to vote against the bill? He can be as vocal as he wants but his vote is his vote.

As with the stag hunting bill, what these guys say on their local radio stations (or our national ones) doesn't matter - with an Oireachtas seat they're constitutionally permitted to lay down standard opposition or formal opposition to anything that comes before the House (it's not that difficult to do). If they don't do that, then there isn't a vote. Because if they don't do that, there isn't a need for one.

Are they though? I'm sure the party whip system would sort out any sort of disagreement in the house.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many members have expressed reservations due to the absence of a get-out-clause for registrars opposed to the bill on religious grounds. Seymour Crawford being the most vocal at the moment.

The demand for a "conscience clause" for registrars is just a mean strategy to allow prejudiced behaviour. A registrar is a public servant performing a public function, and should have no right to decide what members of the public should be allowed exercise their rights, once those rights have been decided by the legislature.

Should a registrar be allowed to refuse to register the death of a person who committed suicide because the registrar believes that suicide is morally wrong? Or refuse to register the marriage of a couple because one was previously married and has divorced? Or refuse to register a birth because the mother is not married?

I suspect that some registrars who are uncomfortable about same-sex relationships might be glad there is no conscience clause: the absence of choice removes the burden of choosing.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It passed without opposition because people where not given a chance to voice their opposition....

Let's face it: our TDs have been more exercised about setting packs of hounds on farm animals and running large-scale greyhound breeding enterprises than they are about giving same-sex relationships some legal status.

Clever move that: distract the Dáil with stag-hunting so that they won't notice the civil partnership bill.

Bebs

What's there to notice? The public seem to be overwhelmingly in support of the bill.

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The demand for a "conscience clause" for registrars is just a mean strategy to allow prejudiced behaviour. A registrar is a public servant performing a public function, and should have no right to decide what members of the public should be allowed exercise their rights, once those rights have been decided by the legislature.

You're right, they are public servants performing a public role. So why in the bill's current form will any registrar who refuses to perform a civil partnership ceremony be personally liable and opent to costly legal actions?

Also that only covers registrars. What of photographers or hotel owners? They are not public servents but will also have their religious freedoms torn apart by this bill. They will be forced to facilitate a ceremony they consider morally wrong.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Should a registrar be allowed to refuse to register the death of a person who committed suicide because the registrar believes that suicide is morally wrong? Or refuse to register the marriage of a couple because one was previously married and has divorced? Or refuse to register a birth because the mother is not married?

Obvious strawman arguement is obviously strawman.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suspect that some registrars who are uncomfortable about same-sex relationships might be glad there is no conscience clause: the absence of choice removes the burden of choosing.

Are you mad? Do you honestly believe any registrar is secretly happy to face legal charges because their religious belifes obliges them to refuse to perform the civil partnership?

Iwasfrozen

Bebs wrote: »

What's there to notice? The public seem to be overwhelmingly in support of the bill.

Seem to be. But then the people of California seemed to overwhelmingly oppose prop 8.

Bebs

Also that only covers registrars. What of photographers or hotel owners? They are not public servents but will also have their religious freedoms torn apart by this bill. They will be forced to facilitate a ceremony they consider morally wrong.

This hasn't been an issue when catering for divorcees which would also be something that any devoted Catholic would consider wrong. Why do you think that the gays in particular are provoking this sort of a response?

Is it the Christian thing to do to demonise your neighbour for being different?

Iwasfrozen

Bebs wrote: »

This hasn't been an issue when catering for divorcees which would also be something that any devoted Catholic would consider wrong. Why do you think that the gays in particular are provoking this sort of a response?

Why would a divorce need a ceremony? Let alone photographers or a hotel.

Bebs wrote: »

Is it the Christian thing to do to demonise your neighbour for being different?

Not only Christians but Jews and Muslims aswell are against homosexual unions on religious grounds.

Bebs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why would a divorce need a ceremony? Let alone photographers or a hotel.


Not only Christians but Jews and Muslims aswell are against homosexual unions on religious grounds.

My point is that it's wrong to deny someone a service based on their religion, colour, creed or sexuality. Where exactly do you get this idea that homosexuality is morally wrong?

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right, they are public servants performing a public role. So why in the bill's current form will any registrar who refuses to perform a civil partnership ceremony be personally liable and opent to costly legal actions?

Why not if they intentionally cause a difficulty for people by refusing to perform a public duty for which they are paid? Let's be realistic about it: the chances of a registrar refusing to perform a ceremony seem quite small.

Also that only covers registrars. What of photographers or hotel owners? They are not public servents but will also have their religious freedoms torn apart by this bill. They will be forced to facilitate a ceremony they consider morally wrong.

Religious freedom is the right to practise one's religion, not to impose its tenets on others.

Obvious strawman arguement is obviously strawman.

It's not obvious to me. A public official can hold any religious belief or moral position as a private matter, but such things should not enter into the performance of a public duty. I gave examples of things that a registrar might find do not sit easily with his or her set of values, but where registrars do not let that get in the way of performing their public function. I see no good argument why registering a civil union should be any different.

Are you mad? Do you honestly believe any registrar is secretly happy to face legal charges because their religious belifes obliges them to refuse to perform the civil partnership?

I think you have the wrong end of the stick -- possibly because you intentionally took hold of it.

I have been around long enough to know how some of our pressure groups play the game, and they don't play in a nice sporting way. If there were a "conscience clause" there would be a very unpleasant scenario: some people that I think particularly nasty would become very active in seeking to influence registrars' behaviour. I am sure that many registrars would be pleased not to be subjected to their earnest entreaties.

sensibleken

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not only Christians but Jews and Muslims aswell are against homosexual unions on religious grounds.

So? and christians jews and muslims are all against each other on religious ground too.

If the government descriminated against Jews that would be wrong, if it did against christians likewise. so why would against homosexuals be ok. Because of one tiny line in the bible?

sceptre

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are they though? I'm sure the party whip system would sort out any sort of disagreement in the house.

Crawford, like anyone else, can vote with his own party or not any time he likes (the party whip might have some things to say about it and probably would do something about it but he's freely part of that grouping for as long as he chooses to stay within it and they choose to keep him). Not even the independents put forward formal opposition. Not one of the 165 TDs with a regular vote did.

Again, no parliamentary opposition, standard or formal: no vote. It's been like that since the beginning of British parliamentary democracy, it's even like that in the smallest community grouping that follows basic British parliamentary practice - while I know some committees do the All in favour, all against" regardless, a few hours of reading Roberts rules of parliamentary procedure for illustration would fix that. It's the system we've followed in the Dail since 1919 so it's not as though it's anything new. Any single TD of any party or non-party could have forced a vote on this.

Apogee

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many members have expressed reservations due to the absence of a get-out-clause for registrars opposed to the bill on religious grounds.

You've named one. Who are the "many" others?

Seymour Crawford being the most vocal at the moment.

As Brendan Howlin mentioned, one might have thought that Deputy Crawford, given his background, would be more alert than most to the dangers of allowing certain groups to discriminate against minorities.

Sulmac

sensibleken wrote: »

If the government descriminated against Jews that would be wrong, if it did against christians likewise. so why would against homosexuals be ok. Because of one tiny line in the bible?

Made me think of this famous clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not only Christians but Jews and Muslims aswell are against homosexual unions on religious grounds.

I wouldn't consider civil partnerships as undermining marriage, or being the equivalent to marriage. It is when family issues come into play that I would be more wary.

oscarBravo

Jakkass wrote: »

It is when family issues come into play that I would be more wary.

Why?

philologos

There are more than just parental rights to be considered -

Is it more a right for a same-sex couple to have a child, or it is more a right for a child to have a mother and a father growing up?

It appears in a lot of issues when we are talking about rights, that a lot of these rights can often be weighed against others in importance, particularly in a court setting. People conclude that this persons right is more important than this other persons right.

Iwasfrozen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why not if they intentionally cause a difficulty for people by refusing to perform a public duty for which they are paid? Let's be realistic about it: the chances of a registrar refusing to perform a ceremony seem quite small.

If the chances of a registrar refusing to perform a ceremony so small then why not give the nod to religious freedom and include the conscious clause?

Also while it is true these peopleare public servents paid to perform a public role they are also people. People with feelings and opinions that obviously will effect their ability to perform said public role. I honestly don't see the problem with including this clause. As you've admitted yourself the number of registrars who refuse to perform the ceremony will be small. So gay couples wil be able to get another registrar and everyone will be happy.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Religious freedom is the right to practise one's religion, not to impose its tenets on others.

Exactly, these people have the right to practice their personal religion without facing a legal challenge because of it.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not obvious to me. A public official can hold any religious belief or moral position as a private matter, but such things should not enter into the performance of a public duty. I gave examples of things that a registrar might find do not sit easily with his or her set of values, but where registrars do not let that get in the way of performing their public function. I see no good argument why registering a civil union should be any different.

This thread is about the civil partnership bill. I'm not going to deviate from that and drag the thread off-topic.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick -- possibly because you intentionally took hold of it.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have been around long enough to know how some of our pressure groups play the game, and they don't play in a nice sporting way. If there were a "conscience clause" there would be a very unpleasant scenario: some people that I think particularly nasty would become very active in seeking to influence registrars' behaviour. I am sure that many registrars would be pleased not to be subjected to their earnest entreaties.

A strong willed registrar would not bend to pressure from a an interest group. Though I'm sure good-honest registrars would not be happy about facing legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down the same sex couple.

oscarBravo

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it more a right for a same-sex couple to have a child, or it is more a right for a child to have a mother and a father growing up?

I think a child has a right to have n loving parent(s), where n is a positive integer generally less than 3. I don't have any particular hangup about the combination of sexes of parents where n > 1. I'd be a lot more concerned about children being brought up by parents who don't love or care for them, and I suspect that that's a much bigger problem.

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If the chances of a registrar refusing to perform a ceremony so small then why not give the nod to religious freedom and include the conscious clause?

Because the law says that freedom to practise your religion doesn't extent to the freedom to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The law is absolutely right to do so. Where you have a separation of church and state, you will inevitably encounter situations where the state says that something is acceptable, whereas religion says it's not. Moreover, the state says that it's illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of what the religion says. Unless you want a theocracy, such tensions are inevitable.

So lines are drawn. The state doesn't tell the Catholic church (or any other sect) that they have to adapt their religious rules to be non-discriminatory. Conversely, the church has no right to tell state employees what laws they are allowed to obey.

If a civil registrar is so offended by the idea that, in order to perform their job in a non-discriminatory way, they would have to go against their religion, they always have the option open to them of resigning from their job.

Also while it is true these peopleare public servents paid to perform a public role they are also people. People with feelings and opinions that obviously will effect their ability to perform said public role. I honestly don't see the problem with including this clause. As you've admitted yourself the number of registrars who refuse to perform the ceremony will be small. So gay couples wil be able to get another registrar and everyone will be happy.

Let's try a reductio ad absurdum approach to that philosophy.

Imagine an employee in, say, the motor tax office who is deeply religious, and is convinced that homosexuality is a mortal sin. This employee has a gay couple approach the counter to renew their car tax.

Would it be OK for this employee to say "it's against my religion to renew your motor tax" and tell them to go to another counter?

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If the chances of a registrar refusing to perform a ceremony so small then why not give the nod to religious freedom and include the conscious clause? ...

I have already given you my reason, but as you seem to think it reasonable to put the same point again, I'll give the same answer again: religious freedom is freedom to practise one's religion, not to impose its tenets on others.

In Ireland today, it is legal to be homosexual. It is a near-certainty that in the near future there will be provision for a same-sex couple to have a legal relationship with one another. It is not for any public official to interfere with the exercise of those rights.

As a general principle (I have no personal stake in this, because I am neither homosexual nor single) I accept that I should live my life in accordance with the law and the dictates of my own conscience. I am not bound, nor should I be bound, by any other person's conscience. I shouldn't even be mildly inconvenienced by the conscience of a public official if it is in any way in conflict with the law of the land.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

... Let's try a reductio ad absurdum approach to that philosophy....

Let's try a different reductio ad absurdum: imagine that every registrar had a conscientious objection to registering a civil partnership. What would happen then?

LookingFor

The debate in the Dail yesterday already touched on so many of these points in a very persuasive and comprehensive way. If one's really so interested in these issues, I'd recommend watching it, and the prior debates on the bill throughout the various stages. Yesterday Ahern was again asked to state the government's position on the idea of such a clause, and he again stated the case against it quite logically. He iterated through reams of examples of what could happen across the public sector if you were to give people discretion due to 'freedom of conscience'. He also quite rightly pointed out that you're kind of protesting the wrong law if this is your problem since it was the equality bill that long ago enshrined protection on several grounds when it comes to access to services.

If you really sit down and think about what you're asking for when you ask for a 'conscience' clause in this kind of legislation, it doesn't take long to arrive at the conclusion that it's just not compatible with the principles of a Republic. It would effectively give religious authorities the power to determine where and when law can apply. If that's the kind of country you want to live in, Ireland probably isn't for you.

PS: The iteration through other scenarios involving 'freedom of conscience' are not strawmen unless it isn't in fact a 'freedom of conscience' clause you want but only specifically the ability to screw over gay people.

Bebs

Sorry but as a gay man I'm still struggling to see what it is about me or my life style that's abhorrent to God. Perhaps you could enlighten me Iwasfrozen.

sensibleken

Bebs wrote: »

Sorry but as a gay man I'm still struggling to see what it is about me or my life style that's abhorrent to God. Perhaps you could enlighten me Iwasfrozen.

leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." however lesbians are awesome. (1 verse)

also leviticus 13:47 - 59 - Mildew is an afront to god
(12 verses)

also when a man has a **** the only solution is to burn pigeons

let he who is without a mildewy shower cast the first stones.

Bebs

Leviticus was what Iris Robinson quoted when she called homosexuality an abomination. I believe that Leviticus has something harsh to say on the subject of adultery which Iris would do well to acquaint herself with.

rovert

Has the social fabric of Ireland been torn yet as a result of this? I looked out the window and it doesnt seem to be YET.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many members have expressed reservations due to the absence of a get-out-clause for registrars opposed to the bill on religious grounds. Seymour Crawford being the most vocal at the moment.

By the way as pointed out by the minister during yesterdays Seanad debate the laws in relation to registrars have been in place since 2004 and no registrar has claimed a conscientious objection in the last 6 years for marrying divorcees or people of other religion

PeakOutput

gotta love a bit of jeb bartlett the greatest american president


pretty good debate going on here

under no circumstances should a public servant be allowed to choose which parts of their job they do or do not participate in. after a long long time we finally have some seperation of church and state. you are more then welcome to practice any religon you want but the day you try and force me to believe or live under that religons laws is the day i get off my lazy ass and do my best to destroy you

i get sick a little bit in my mouth when i think of two men having sex the physical act doesnt appeal to me in any way but if thats what they want to do and thats how they want to live their life go for it.

the country just decided that they are entitled to these rights some backward registrar from hole of nowhere should not get to excersise their opinion on the matter in any other way then voting for someone else in the next election or by resigning their position

Brian O Dalaigh

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it more a right for a same-sex couple to have a child, or it is more a right for a child to have a mother and a father growing up?

It is a child's right to have a mother and a father. That does not mean it should be a duty. I have the right to travel all over the world - it does not mean I have to. Also, to have a state-sanctioned idea of a family is to have a mother, father and child. But there are many examples all over the planet from varying societies where this not the case - take the native Americans as an example before Western beliefs and morals were placed on their cultures. In these societies children did not have a family as we know it. Instead they were raised by the entire tribe. And it didn't do them any harm. And are we going to stop our soldiers being sent away on foreign missions because they would be away from the family? Personally speaking, I think if the parents, adoptive or natural, love the child and are willing to bring the child up with good morals, love and affection, then I don't see a problem with the child having two male parents, two female parents, three parents or a whole cluster of people - as long as the child is safe and well-looked after.

philologos

Brian O Dalaigh wrote: »

It is a child's right to have a mother and a father. That does not mean it should be a duty.

Wouldn't you not consider it more important that people should have a mother and a father and be influenced by both, rather than that people should be allowed to travel all over the world. Priority seems to be somewhat different in that case.

Brian O Dalaigh wrote: »

Also, to have a state-sanctioned idea of a family is to have a mother, father and child. But there are many examples all over the planet from varying societies where this not the case - take the native Americans as an example before Western beliefs and morals were placed on their cultures. In these societies children did not have a family as we know it. Instead they were raised by the entire tribe. And it didn't do them any harm.

With both male and female role-models active in their lives I'm fairly sure?

Brian O Dalaigh wrote: »

And are we going to stop our soldiers being sent away on foreign missions because they would be away from the family?

People generally stop being children when they become 18 years old. By that stage most key development will have been over.

Brian O Dalaigh

Jakkass wrote: »

Wouldn't you not consider it more important that people should have a mother and a father and be influenced by both, rather than that people should be allowed to travel all over the world. Priority seems to be somewhat different in that case.

I think you obviously have no idea what comparisons are if you are unable to recognise what I said. I believe that it is NOT important that people should have a mother and father and be influenced by both. What happens if the child's father is dead before birth? Do we kill the child? Is the child doomed to grow up being a murdering raping abusing alcoholic homosexual* devil-worshipping* racist xenophobic kelptomaniacal sociopath? Please show me where there is evidence that a child NEEDS both male and female parents? It is us as a society with our "Christian" "western" values that dictates that a child needs a mother and a father. It is so structured because a typical family is a much easier unit to enumerate, to assess, and to monitor (whether benign simple monitoring such as spending habits, to more malevolent monitoring such as in fascist or even communist countries). And in bringing about our "valued" ideal of family, we have alienated children that are brought up with two male parents but no female parent (and I dont necessarily mean gay parents here either - children brought up by father and uncle have also been seen as outcasts in their communities not just in impoverished Africa but here in Ireland right up until the 50s), two female parents but no male parent, children brought up by grandparents, children brought up in one-parent families, etc. Your ideal family is causing so many social issues and problems that I really fail to see how it should remain in situ as the method for dictating what does and does not constitute a family.

* Those marked with the asterisk I actually have no problem with. People are free in my mind to believe what they want and to be gay, straight, bisexual, etc. And I believe what we have here in this debate is typical. We have people like me who like to think and wish we lived in a free country where people can do whatever they want, be with whoever they want etc. as long as it does not negatively affect others. Whereas people like Jakkass believe we should follow the established status quo and wreck the lives of those that don't follow suit - even if they do not affect anyone else's lives. There is no non-biased evidence that dual-sex families are better than single-sex families at raising children. I believe that single-sex families might actually be better at it as they would be raising children they want to have, unlike so many dual-sex families raising children they don't want.

Otacon

Jakkass wrote: »

With both male and female role-models active in their lives I'm fairly sure?

Do you believe gay people don't have other male and female family members and friends? To quote the Beatles, 'all you need is love'. After that, having a penis or vagina doesn't really matter.

Brian O Dalaigh

Jakkass wrote: »

With both male and female role-models active in their lives I'm fairly sure?

Please read what I wrote before you comment. I was highlighting different family structures, not pointing out a group of women raising children. yes of course there were men present, but no single mother and father like what you advocate. By your own ideas even that structure I quoted is wrong for the child

Jakkass wrote: »

People generally stop being children when they become 18 years old. By that stage most key development will have been over.

Again you miss-read what I wrote. Soldiers have families too. Which means some soldiers have children. When those soldiers are sent away on mission, does that suddenly make their family unit, and hence their children, immoral, wrong, unworkable? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

oscarBravo

Jakkass wrote: »

Wouldn't you not consider it more important that people should have a mother and a father and be influenced by both, rather than that people should be allowed to travel all over the world.

Do you think it should be mandatory for widowed parents to re-marry as soon as possible, in order to make sure every child has a mother and father?

Beruthiel

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you think it should be mandatory for widowed parents to re-marry as soon as possible, in order to make sure every child has a mother and father?

Perhaps single mothers should have their babies taken from them once they give birth.

Sulmac

Beruthiel wrote: »

Perhaps single mothers should have their babies taken from them once they give birth.

Worked well up until the 1980s.

Oh no, wait...

philologos

Otacon wrote: »

Do you believe gay people don't have other male and female family members and friends? To quote the Beatles, 'all you need is love'. After that, having a penis or vagina doesn't really matter.

This assumes that gender doesn't influence behaviour, which would be pretty inaccurate I would suspect. Male and female role models offer different attributes to a child that is developing.

I would also suspect, that the Beatles aren't a reputable source in respect to the place of the family in society

As for female family members and friends, I would suspect that if people were being brought up by two of the same gender, that this would lessen the contact of the child with a female role model. The nuclear family model, or an imitated nuclear family (through adoption) model seems to be the most effective and indeed the most familiar, and the most in tune with the biological formation of family.

philologos

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you think it should be mandatory for widowed parents to re-marry as soon as possible, in order to make sure every child has a mother and father?

I don't think it is possible to legislate in all cases, but I think that society should aim to provide the vast majority of children with a caring mother and father yes.

I think re-marriage in respect to widowed people could have a positive effect on the child, but only if there is true love involved.

Brian O Dalaigh wrote: »

Please read what I wrote before you comment. I was highlighting different family structures, not pointing out a group of women raising children. yes of course there were men present, but no single mother and father like what you advocate. By your own ideas even that structure I quoted is wrong for the child.

Your post would be a strawman argument then. I amn't arguing about a Native American structure of family, I am arguing about whether or not a same-sex relationship can provide as effective a structure as the nuclear / adopted heterosexual family.

By my own ideas, the nuclear family is by far the optimum for a child. Regular contact in life (daily, every few hours) with both male and female role models, even as in the Native American structure, is better as I would see it than a family that deprives people of either.

Chuchoter

Jakkass wrote: »

This assumes that gender doesn't influence behaviour, which would be pretty inaccurate I would suspect. Male and female role models offer different attributes to a child that is developing.

I would also suspect, that the Beatles aren't a reputable source in respect to the place of the family in society

As for female family members and friends, I would suspect that if people were being brought up by two of the same gender, that this would lessen the contact of the child with a female role model. The nuclear family model, or an imitated nuclear family (through adoption) model seems to be the most effective and indeed the most familiar, and the most in tune with the biological formation of family.

Your argument relies on the assumption of gender roles and that men and women hold some kind of inherent traits that never overlap into the other gender. Its not in tune with the biological order, its in tune with the christian western ideal. Should we take all the children off single parents and have them adopted if a male and female role model is so important? What about kids raised by aunts/uncles/other extended family? They all turn out fine in the absence of conflict.

philologos

Men and women behave differently, and can provide their child with differing understandings. Mothers and fathers serve differing roles within families, precisely because their gender causes them to act differently in different situations. I never said "don't overlap" it's obvious that some traits do overlap, but a lot don't.

I think you should ask me what I think rather than assuming?

As for single parents, I would encourage them to seriously think about entering into another relationship, not just for them, but for the sake of their children. I would probably support an understanding where people think about marrying before having children as a means to further ensure that children are born into stable families, and that they aren't deprived of either a mother or a father.

It is as the traditional understanding of marriage is being eroded that such situations begin to arise. At least that would be my take on it.

Chuchoter

Jakkass wrote: »

Men and women behave differently, and can provide their child with differing understandings. Mothers and fathers serve differing roles within families, precisely because their gender causes them to act differently in different situations. I never said "don't overlap" it's obvious that some traits do overlap, but a lot don't.

I think you should ask me what I think rather than assuming?

As for single parents, I would encourage them to seriously think about entering into another relationship, not just for them, but for the sake of their children. I would probably support an understanding where people think about marrying before having children as a means to further ensure that children are born into stable families, and that they aren't deprived of either a mother or a father.

It is as the traditional understanding of marriage is being eroded that such situations begin to arise. At least that would be my take on it.

So explain, do you propose all women are caring, understanding, loving and irrational whereas men are hard, rational, sporty, stern? If I was a man I would be the exact same person. You are generalizing and gender stereotyping.

jaffa20

Jakkass wrote: »

The nuclear family model, or an imitated nuclear family (through adoption) model seems to be the most effective and indeed the most familiar, and the most in tune with the biological formation of family.

What do you mean by most familiar? Also the choice of highlighted terminology is not very convincing in my opinion. Can you give specific examples where of where children have been raised to the contrary with same gender parents? If not, then your points are flawed.

You are effectively saying that the nuclear family works because of the two different genders present within, i would argue that it works because they have the childs best interests at heart.

philologos

crayolastereo wrote: »

So explain, do you propose all women are caring, understanding, loving and irrational whereas men are hard, rational, sporty, stern? If I was a man I would be the exact same person. You are generalizing and gender stereotyping.

Not at all, there are various journals that describe the differing roles that mothers have and the differing roles that fathers have.

Men and women are different and act differently. I wouldn't have thought that was hugely problematic.

It's absolutely nothing to do with gender stereotyping in the slightest. Take a look for Gender roles in child development, there is a lot of work done on it and much discussing how children find it difficult to grow up without a father.

33% God

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all, there are various journals that describe the differing roles that mothers have and the differing roles that fathers have.

Men and women are different and act differently. I wouldn't have thought that was hugely problematic.

It's absolutely nothing to do with gender stereotyping in the slightest. Take a look for Gender roles in child development, there is a lot of work done on it and much discussing how children find it difficult to grow up without a father.

There is no credible research that shows that children raised by same sex parents differ in any important way from those raised by heterosexual parents.

Source: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
Amici curiae in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion, and brief amici curiae of the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion

PeakOutput

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all, there are various journals that describe the differing roles that mothers have and the differing roles that fathers have.

Men and women are different and act differently. I wouldn't have thought that was hugely problematic.

It's absolutely nothing to do with gender stereotyping in the slightest. Take a look for Gender roles in child development, there is a lot of work done on it and much discussing how children find it difficult to grow up without a father.

if you read this thread from the begining you would have seen that there have already been links posted to studies that show that a child raised by two parents of the same sex is no different or at n disadvantage to a child raised in a traditional family

aloyisious

I think I've got it right in choosing this thread to highlight what seem's to be a definition of how Irish Trans-persons rights are still not respected by some fellow Irish people. The Sunday World reported on how a Tesco (Limerick) employee was caught videoing and photographing a trans-person and other customers and posting them on his facebook page, along with allegedly abusive comments on non-national customers. When challenged on facebook, the named Tesco employee allegedly told the challenger to "**** off my page if you don't want to see my material plain and simple". Tesco and the employee are named in the following GCN published reports. The abuse defined is disgusting.

http://www.gcn.ie/LGBT_Group_Challenge_Tesco_Over_Transphobic_Abuse_By_Employee

http://www.gcn.ie/Tesco_Employee_Caught_Photographing_And_Mocking_Trans_Customers_

junder

Gay marriage, a loyalist perspective

https://audioboo.fm/boos/1656794-pupconf-julieacorr-s-impassioned-successful-motion-supporting-equal-marriage