Gay Marriage poll reveals that Ireland still has a depressing amount of morons in it

Coeurdepirate

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Ok i probably should have left my initial comment at :

Ive allsorts of point and comments i want to make on this but as was pointed out very early on in this thread i'm stupid for actually having my own opinion on the matter when it doesnt suit the gay lobby/view pt.






I freely admit i don't have answers to the last few post but then i knew when typing my first post here that i'd get jumped on ... And would come acropper

Whether people like it or not, everybody is entitled to their opinion irrespective of what they base that on no matter how inconvenient the opposing view may find those opinions - yes i am aware that cuts both ways.

The majority on this thread appear to be for full marriage rights (and separately full adoption right) for all couples and i respect that, i don't agree with their opinion but i respect their opinion.

So basically, you're maintaining your opinion despite having been shown exactly how your opinion is oppressive and discriminatory. This is what we call bigotry.

Stop trying to play the victim card by crying about how you're being jumped on etc. When rational people are presented with scientific evidence as to why their opinion is prejudiced and damaging to society, they change it. By admitting that you've no reason to oppose same-sex marriage other than 'just because', you've shown how irrational you are.

Your arguments have been destroyed by other posters and you no longer have any reason to oppose same-sex marriage apart from religious dogma, yet still insist on depriving a sizeable minority of the population of their rights, which seems an awful lot to me like forcing your beliefs on other people.

Sofiztikated

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

So basically, you're maintaining your opinion despite having been shown exactly how your opinion is oppressive and discriminatory. This is what we call bigotry.

Stop trying to play the victim card by crying about how you're being jumped on etc. When rational people are presented with scientific evidence as to why their opinion is prejudiced and damaging to society, they change it. By admitting that you've no reason to oppose same-sex marriage other than 'just because', you've shown how irrational you are.

Your arguments have been destroyed by other posters and you no longer have any reason to oppose same-sex marriage apart from religious dogma, yet still insist on depriving a sizeable minority of the population of their rights, which seems an awful lot to me like forcing your beliefs on other people.

I'd compare it to me not liking fish. I don't eat fish, I don't like fish, I won't try fish. People have pointed out that fish is nice, and why it's nice. But I still don't like fish.



But I'm not going to stop anyone that does like fish get married.

floggg

RDM_83 again wrote: »

First let me point out that I support Gay marriage.

But there is valid reasons for people having reservations on about knock on effects in its application.

I can think of one example of the top of my head, in the UK most catholic adoption agencies have pulled out of offering services as they have had their charitable status revoked due to not considering gay couples as valid candidates, now I personally don;t have any major issue with Gay couples raising children however I do think that the mother giving up a child for adoption loosing her right to choose a provider that reflects her beliefs is not a good thing*.

* I'm sure the general religion bashing crowd love the idea though, its not very pro-choice though

This had probably been responded to, but the closure of catholic adoption agencies isn't a consequence of marriage equality, but rather a consequence of their intolerance and refusal to give up discriminatory practices.

If they would rather stop providing the service than do so in a lawful manner, that is their choice.


And in any event, I don't think the performed loss of choice for parents wanting to give up their child for adoption can be rationally said to be a greater wrong than the denial of equality to same sex couples.

In the same way, I doubt you would argue an anticipated withdrawal of services by some racist entities would not be a valid reason to refuse to introduce racial equality.

Terry1985

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

So basically, you're maintaining your opinion despite having been shown exactly how your opinion is oppressive and discriminatory. This is what we call bigotry.

And that's what 'we' call condescending.

Every argument for gay marriage can be equally applied to polygamy. If someone is entitled to marry once, why can't they marry again and again? So where do we draw the line on the erosion of our definition of marriage?

Marriage is the human equivalent of pair bonding in nature. Why should the state rubber stamp and apply all the benefits of marriage to a couple who are not a real biological couple? (hetero)... apart from the obvious answer that they don't want to lose votes...

Foxhound38

Terry1985 wrote: »

If ye want to extend and devalue marriage you might as well allow polygamy too since that is found in nature, ancient cultures used to do it, some still do and I'm sure someone can dig up an obscure study on the net claiming it's as good as monogamy. After all polygamy isn't hurting anyone and it should be a basic human right.

Ye have gay dolphins on your side, I imagine I could find a polygamous mammal to complete the argument. And everyone who doesn't agree with polygamy is an intolerant idiot, Neanderthal, low IQ etc, etc...

But who is calling for Polygamy? What massive group of people is disenfranchised by the ban on Polygamy?

Where is it written exactly that just because gay marriage is legalized, we necessarily have to legalize polygamy/marriage with animals/marriage to family members/marriage to children?

Logical fallacy

Amirani

Terry1985 wrote: »

And that's what 'we' call condescending.

Every argument for gay marriage can be equally applied to polygamy. If someone is entitled to marry once, why can't they marry again and again? So where do we draw the line on the erosion of our definition of marriage?

Marriage is the human equivalent of pair bonding in nature. Why should the state rubber stamp and apply all the benefits of marriage to a couple who are not a real biological couple? (hetero)... apart from the obvious answer that they don't want to lose votes...

Your argument would be fair if certain sections of the populace were already entitled to polygamous marriages. For example, it men were currently permitted to have multiple wives in Irish law, I'd be actively lobbying for the same right to be afforded to women.

This is purely about equality.

floggg

weirdspider wrote: »

Its biologically unnatural. From an evolutionary standpoint males aren't designed to "mate" with other males and I don't agree with such a lifestyle. I also think that a marriage should be between a man and a woman and there should be a separate type of ceremony for gay people to distinguish between them. I'm not taking a religious view to it whatsoever btw. My comment may get backlash as the majority of Boards are quite liberal in their views but I'm not replying to any comments thrashing my personal views.

If you want to take it down to evolutionary terms, there are a number if evolutionary scientists who have out forth very well reasoned why homosexuality developed from an evolutionary standpoint.

To keep or more basic though -

1. If its "unnatural" why does homosexuality occur naturally then - in both animals and humans.

It's not a case of "turning gay" - people really are born that way. And have been for as long as man has been man. If nature keeps producing gay babies, then evidently it must be a rather natural occurrence.

2. If two men aren't meant to "mate" or have sex, why is the prostrate, the male G spot, reachable only through the anus?

Seems like nature wanted somebody to stimulate it, and if it was meant to be women they'd have dicks.


Unless by "not natural" you actually just meant "ewwww"?

squod

Foxhound38 wrote: »

But who is calling for Polygamy? What massive group of people is disenfranchised by the ban on Polygamy?

Where is it written exactly that just because gay marriage is legalized, we necessarily have to legalize polygamy/marriage with animals/marriage to family members/marriage to children?

Logical fallacy

We should wait until some group pipes up about wanting to marry donkeys or whatever? Noice! Über liberals FTW.

I'll have three canaries as bride grooms, a statue of Elvis as the priest and fireworks shooting from my ass as I commit eternally to love eight baboons and a banjo.

lazygal

squod wrote: »

I commit eternally to love ... a banjo.

You sick fück.

Coeurdepirate

Terry1985 wrote: »

And that's what 'we' call condescending.

Every argument for gay marriage can be equally applied to polygamy. If someone is entitled to marry once, why can't they marry again and again? So where do we draw the line on the erosion of our definition of marriage?

Marriage is the human equivalent of pair bonding in nature. Why should the state rubber stamp and apply all the benefits of marriage to a couple who are not a real biological couple? (hetero)... apart from the obvious answer that they don't want to lose votes...

It just wouldn't be a bigoted post against same-sex marriage without at least some mention of the slippery slope fallacy to legalising polygamy/incest/bestiality, would it?

How can every argument for same-sex marriage be applied to polygamy? Polygamy breeds chauvinism and is quite degrading to women.

1ZRed

Terry1985 wrote: »

And that's what 'we' call condescending.

Every argument for gay marriage can be equally applied to polygamy. If someone is entitled to marry once, why can't they marry again and again? So where do we draw the line on the erosion of our definition of marriage?

Well it's a good thing we're not talking about polygamy whatsoever at all then, but if you want to discuss it why not start a new thread? I don't know how you think it's fair when you throw the polygamy card our way and expect us to to tie ourselves in knots trying to show you how it doesn't apply to this discussion at all, especially when you consider that history shows us that polygamy has always been between straight people with gay people not even being allowed to be together, never mind have multiple same-sex partners, so no, the polygamy is not valid to the discussion about *two* people who want to marry.

As for your "erosion of the definition of marriage" and drawing the line, that's actually very humorous considering straight people have already changed the definition of marriage to include divorce. Straight people are allowed to marry and divorce as much as they please. Look at Kim Kardashian's 72 day wedding and tell me why she's allowed to do that and I wouldn't be allowed to marry. The sanctity of marriage has already been destroyed by straight people, yet they still seem to think they own it when marriage exclusively between a man and a woman is a relatively new concept when before Christianity there was same-sex marriage in many societies.

So why is to ok for the likes of some straight people to make a total mockery out of marriage yet when a legitimate same-sex couple want to marry it's "eroding the definition of marriage", ah that's right, it's because it's two gays and that disgusts you.

Marriage is the human equivalent of pair bonding in nature. Why should the state rubber stamp and apply all the benefits of marriage to a couple who are not a real biological couple? (hetero)... apart from the obvious answer that they don't want to lose votes...

Again, marriage is about pair bonding, but you're making the mistake of thinking marriage is about children and reproduction. It's not, otherwise it'd be mandatory it have children, which it's not. Also, since you say marriage is only for "real" biological couples, assuming you mean ones capable of reproducing, does that not make infertile married straight people's marriage void then too? Should they not be allowed to marry since they're not going to reproduce and so aren't a "real biological couple either".

You're seriously tripping over your own logic here and once and for all I'm calling you out on it and to stop dodging questions and just answer them.

Terry1985

NiallSparky wrote: »

This is purely about equality.

But they're not equal, nor should they be.
The state/society rightly protects a biological hetero couple, the traditional family unit. leaving aside the usual LGBT stuff about infertile couples etc.

Why should the state pretend that two men need the same level of protection?
It's ridiculous.
I'm all for increasing partners rights as legal guardians of their partners kids, but not full marriage.

Absoluvely

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

Polygamy breeds chauvinism and is quite degrading to women.

No, polygamy is gender-neutral.

1ZRed

Terry1985 wrote: »

But they're not equal, nor should they be.
The state/society rightly protects a biological hetero couple, the traditional family unit. leaving aside the usual LGBT stuff about infertile couples etc.

Why should the state pretend that two men need the same level of protection?
It's ridiculous.
I'm all for increasing partners rights as legal guardians of their partners kids, but not full marriage.

Shock horror, you've shown that you just don't like it so we shouldn't be seen as equal because we're not apparently. Ridiculous, then again, I remembered from other threads that it just boiled down to you just not liking the idea of it after pretending to use "logic" to prove your point. I didn't know why I bothered to humour you, but give yourself some respect and just own up to it instead of engaging in this pathetic attempt to justify your irrational dislike of gay marriage based on nothing instead of failing time and time again to do it.

Amirani

Terry1985 wrote: »

But they're not equal, nor should they be.
The state/society rightly protects a biological hetero couple, the traditional family unit. leaving aside the usual LGBT stuff about infertile couples etc.

**** the "traditional family unit". I didn't grow up in a traditional family unit, and either are more and more people these days. Some nostalgia about it's greatness shouldn't get in the way of the fact that it's not a reality. It isn't inherently better for children, so why should it be protected while less conventional family structures aren't?

Sofiztikated

I've just realised that a lot of the arguments put forward are not

"Why gay people shouldn't get married"

but rather

"I essentially don't think they should be together, full stop"

Edit: And poster boy for why gay people should get married, and it doesn't harm the kids, Neil Patrick Harris, and his partner. I can't think of what looks like a better parent and partner than those two.

gcgirl

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I've just realised that a lot of the arguments put forward are not

"Why gay people shouldn't get married"

but rather

"I essentially don't think they should be together, full stop"

Pretty much nailed it

Coeurdepirate

Absoluvely wrote: »

No, polygamy is gender-neutral.

Where, in practise, is polygamy gender-neutral?

stephen97

stephen97 wrote: »

maybe if you were paying attention in school you would have realised 97 to 2013 is sweet 16, instead of being a ~~~~~~

I've decided to vote no to giving 16 year olds the vote

Daith

Terry1985 wrote: »

But they're not equal, nor should they be.

"if this Bill is passed, I am concerned about the possible effect on Irish society. Will we now see exhibitions in public by homosexuals holding hands, kissing, cuddling, etc? Is homosexual behaviour to be put on a par with heterosexual behaviour?"

That was 20 years ago. Sad to see some people still think like that.

You're defintley not my equal anyway.

Absoluvely

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

Where, in practise, is polygamy gender-neutral?

No idea. I really don't have much interest in polygamy.

But any degradation towards women that happens in polygamous relationships isn't a result of the properties of polygamy. It's a result of something else. The concept of polygamy isn't sexist at all.

cloudatlas

The House of Lords have just approved the gay marriage bill in England. It's only a matter of time before this political backwater follows suit. It's going to happen someday whether they like it or not.

Mr Benevolent

I'm surprised at this discussion. Do we have the right to vote whatever way we want? Do I have to conform to the majority opinion? Yes to the first and no the second.

jank

NiallSparky wrote: »

**** the "traditional family unit". I didn't grow up in a traditional family unit, and either are more and more people these days. Some nostalgia about it's greatness shouldn't get in the way of the fact that it's not a reality. It isn't inherently better for children, so why should it be protected while less conventional family structures aren't?

This is one of my biggest bug bears about this topic. Gay marriage affects a tiny tiny proportion of the population (0.2% of the UK I heard? ) yet every week there is a thread on AH about it. As a problem it’s vastly over discussed. Meanwhile marriage in general between a heterosexual couple is at its weakest ebb since time began. If the left were so concerned about marriage then what are they proposing to strengthen it as a whole rather than keep banging the same drum over and over.

You are wrong that it doesn’t inherently affect children. There are tons of statistics pointing out that if you are from divorced parents you are more likely to suffer mental illness, have lower educational qualifications, suffer an early death and more likely to end up in prison. This is not even going into the statistics of the children of single parent families where the evidence is just as damming. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule before the cavalry come riding over the hill but growing up in either household is statistically worse than being brought up in a strong loving family unit (gay or straight). Society as a whole suffers because of this and we have thanks to years of bad welfare policy and government intervention where there is now more of a benefit NOT to get married than to get married. But hey, their intentions were well meaning so they get a pass! :rolleyes:

OCorcrainn

So OP you call anyone who differs from your views a moron?

You are a hypocrite.

Akrasia

Jamie Cal wrote: »

I always think it's funny when the anti-equality crew say s**t like "well, if can marry a man, what can you do next, marry your dog?" like that wouldn't be the most fun thing in the world.

Didn't they make a Rob Sneider movie about that?

Amirani

jank wrote: »

You are wrong that it doesn’t inherently affect children. There are tons of statistics pointing out that if you are from divorced parents you are more likely to suffer mental illness, have lower educational qualifications, suffer an early death and more likely to end up in prison. This is not even going into the statistics of the children of single parent families where the evidence is just as damming. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule before the cavalry come riding over the hill but growing up in either household is statistically worse than being brought up in a strong loving family unit (gay or straight). Society as a whole suffers because of this and we have thanks to years of bad welfare policy and government intervention where there is now more of a benefit NOT to get married than to get married. But hey, their intentions were well meaning so they get a pass! :rolleyes:

Care to provide any of these statistics? Too many people use statistics today without having received any training in how to use them properly.

You're falling victim of the fallacy that correlation equals causation. It doesn't. The biggest factor in a parent's influence on a child's development is how much care and love they have for the child. Perhaps a greater proportion of single parents care less, this however doesn't mean that single parent families are any worse for children. That's a statistical assumption that is being made, not a categorical fact.

Corkfeen

OCorcrainn wrote: »

So OP you call anyone who differs from your views a moron?

You are a hypocrite.

Has been explained already but shall do so again. To oppose something for no rational reason is moronic, not all opinions should be respected as some are built on idiocy. Opposition to gay marriage is bigoted as it will have no harmful effect on society as those people seem to believe.

In regards to the Journal poll, I wouldn't be concerned, it has gotten far higher support in previous polls on the site . So I'd suspect if you checked the IP addresses it would explain it all... Online polls are as dodgy as hell...

Coeurdepirate

Absoluvely wrote: »

No idea. I really don't have much interest in polygamy.

But any degradation towards women that happens in polygamous relationships isn't a result of the properties of polygamy. It's a result of something else. The concept of polygamy isn't sexist at all.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to do a little research before posting. Polyandry is virtually unheard of, forbidden by all major religions. As polygamy in practise has for the most part always been one man and multiple women, saying that polygamy doesn't degrade women is frankly ignorant.

Terry1985

Daith wrote: »

"if this Bill is passed, I am concerned about the possible effect on Irish society. Will we now see exhibitions in public by homosexuals holding hands, kissing, cuddling, etc? Is homosexual behaviour to be put on a par with heterosexual behaviour?"

That was 20 years ago. Sad to see some people still think like that.

You're defintley not my equal anyway.

WTF?

Now you're making up your own dialog and pushing it on me???

Quote where I said anything like that.

I've said before, in other threads, I've no problem with whatever behavior consenting adults get up to.

But I don't appreciate having to pretend they're a real biological couple enshrined in law.

Coeurdepirate

Terry1985 wrote: »

WTF?

Now you're making up your own dialog and pushing it on me???

Quote where I said anything like that.

I've said before, in other threads, I've no problem with whatever behavior consenting adults get up to.

But I don't appreciate having to pretend they're a real biological couple enshrined in law.

How are same-sex couples not 'real' couples? Since they exist, would that not make them real?

Fortunately natural selection will soon wipe you out along with those who share your disgusting views.

Daith

Terry1985 wrote: »

WTF?

Now you're making up your own dialog and pushing it on me???

Quote where I said anything like that.

I've said before, in other threads, I've no problem with whatever behavior consenting adults get up to.

But I don't appreciate having to pretend they're a real biological couple enshrined in law.

That was spoken by a TD 20 years ago when homosexuality was decriminalised.

Your own view points echo him "Is homosexual behaviour to be put on a par with heterosexual behaviour?"

Terry1985 wrote: »

But they're not equal, nor should they be.

Terry1985

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

Fortunately natural selection will soon wipe you out along with those who share your disgusting views.

Is wishing death on someone allowed in AH?

Maybe you're incorrectly confusing sexual selection with natural selection?
Which would be extremely ironic on your side of the debate.

VinLieger

Terry1985 wrote: »

But they're not equal, nor should they be.

Explain this to me? please with out any logical falacies like cus i say so and its what i was told by the parish priest or my mum

I honestly doubt you can cus your a bigot plain and simple since you see the first part of that quote just shows ignorance while the second part is pretty hatefilled

Mod: Poster banned for this post

Pumpkinseeds

I would fully support civil partnership but I don't believe that various religions should be forced to perform marriages which are against their teachings. Don't get me wrong I've no love for any organised religion. I'm straight and my husband and I chose to get married in a registry office in England. I believe that gay couples should be able to have their partnerships legally recognised and have the same rights as any married couple.

Grayson

jank wrote: »

This is one of my biggest bug bears about this topic. Gay marriage affects a tiny tiny proportion of the population (0.2% of the UK I heard? ) yet every week there is a thread on AH about it. As a problem it’s vastly over discussed. Meanwhile marriage in general between a heterosexual couple is at its weakest ebb since time began. If the left were so concerned about marriage then what are they proposing to strengthen it as a whole rather than keep banging the same drum over and over.

You are wrong that it doesn’t inherently affect children. There are tons of statistics pointing out that if you are from divorced parents you are more likely to suffer mental illness, have lower educational qualifications, suffer an early death and more likely to end up in prison. This is not even going into the statistics of the children of single parent families where the evidence is just as damming. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule before the cavalry come riding over the hill but growing up in either household is statistically worse than being brought up in a strong loving family unit (gay or straight). Society as a whole suffers because of this and we have thanks to years of bad welfare policy and government intervention where there is now more of a benefit NOT to get married than to get married. But hey, their intentions were well meaning so they get a pass! :rolleyes:

See, there are stats that show people from a single parent family are more likely to have a lower educational level and are more likely to get in trouble later in life. But the single parent isn't why. It's because a greater number of people who are single parents come from a lower income strata. Also single parent families have less income. So the issues that arise aren't about a lack of a father figure or anything like that. Single parent children do not suffer any kind of emotional trauma because they only have one parent. They experience it because of economic reasons.

These effects do not happen in gay couples because they have two wages coming in.

Daith

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I would fully support civil partnership but I don't believe that various religions should be forced to perform marriages which are against their teachings. Don't get me wrong I've no love for any organised religion. I'm straight and my husband and I chose to get married in a registry office in England. I believe that gay couples should be able to have their partnerships legally recognised and have the same rights as any married couple.

No Church will be forced to marry gay couples.

Pumpkinseeds

Daith wrote: »

No Church will be forced to marry gay couples.

I know that's the case here, I was just recalling a case in England a while ago. In this day and age it's high time people just got over the gay bias. If people fall in love and want to make that kind of commitment to each other they should be allowed to celebrate that and have the same rights under the law as any married couple. I've never understood some peoples hatred of homosexuality, frankly what goes on between 2 consenting adults, gay or straight, so long as it doesn't involve animals or children, should be nobody else's damn business.

Frank Lee Midere

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I know that's the case here, I was just recalling a case in England a while ago. In this day and age it's high time people just got over the gay bias. If people fall in love and want to make that kind of commitment to each other they should be allowed to celebrate that and have the same rights under the law as any married couple. I've never understood some peoples hatred of homosexuality, frankly what goes on between 2 consenting adults, gay or straight, so long as it doesn't involve animals or children, should be nobody else's damn business.

So what English case are you thinking about?

As far as I know the State recognizes - here and the UK - the signing of the register as the marriage. Priests are legally allowed to do that as are other registrars. The marriage isn't the religious ceremony it's that signing.

Nobody is going to force a religious ceremony to (religiously) marry anybody. However it could be argued that all registrars should have to allow all legally permissible (State) marriages. Which would be a problem for the Church.

Two solutions.

1) separate the legal from the religious ceremony. Mexico does this.
2) Allow registrars to apply for either rights to marry homosexual, heterosexual or both.

Terry1985

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I've never understood some peoples hatred....

I never understood why the LGBT side think hate comes into it at all. In fact in this thread any hate eg. Wishing me dead, has come from their side.

I'm very level headed, but want to protect the current definition of marriage and also don't believe that the state should extend marital state and legal benefits to a gay couple when the spirit of the law was to protect vulnerable women and children in the family unit.

Corkfeen

Terry1985 wrote: »

I never understood why the LGBT side think hate comes into it at all. In fact in this thread any hate eg. Wishing me dead, has come from their side.

I'm very level headed, but want to protect the current definition of marriage and also don't believe that the state should extend marital state and legal benefits to a gay couple when the spirit of the law was to protect vulnerable women and children in the family unit.

Homophobia is classified as an irrational fear as well of hate. Can you think of a rational reason to prevent gay couples from marrying? Many already have children, don't the children deserve the protection of both of their parents being recognised? Or would you prefer that they get lobbed into state care in the event of one of their parents dying?

There's no requirement in marriage to have children btw. Plenty of people who are neither capable or have no intention of having children get married. So really, they're already undermining your concept of marriage.....

Daith

Terry1985 wrote: »

I never understood why the LGBT side think hate comes into it at all. In fact in this thread any hate eg. Wishing me dead, has come from their side.

Well you say gay relationships aren't equal to hetosexual relationships you can see why "hate" may come into it?

Terry1985 wrote: »

I'm very level headed, but want to protect the current definition of marriage and also don't believe that the state should extend marital state and legal benefits to a gay couple when the spirit of the law was to protect vulnerable women and children in the family unit.

And not to protect the vulnerable children in a same sex family when the state will only acknowledge one gay parent as the legal parent and not both?

The constitution is there to protect the family unit. This does not seem to apply to protecting same sex familes.

Coeurdepirate

Terry1985 wrote: »

I never understood why the LGBT side think hate comes into it at all. In fact in this thread any hate eg. Wishing me dead, has come from their side.

I'm very level headed, but want to protect the current definition of marriage and also don't believe that the state should extend marital state and legal benefits to a gay couple when the spirit of the law was to protect vulnerable women and children in the family unit.

Typical response from a bigot, you have no real arguments to back up your points so you play the victim. Granted, my post was unnecessarily ad hominem, but twisting my words to suggest that I wished you dead is pathetic.

In the end it all comes down to you wishing to force your views on everyone else. If same-sex marriage is legalised, it will have no affect on your life whatsoever, if not, then the happiness and security of countless families around Ireland are compromised.

Amirani

Terry1985 wrote: »

the spirit of the law was to protect vulnerable women and children in the family unit.

What's this rubbish about protecting vulnerable women?

jank

Grayson wrote: »

See, there are stats that show people from a single parent family are more likely to have a lower educational level and are more likely to get in trouble later in life. But the single parent isn't why. It's because a greater number of people who are single parents come from a lower income strata. Also single parent families have less income. So the issues that arise aren't about a lack of a father figure or anything like that. Single parent children do not suffer any kind of emotional trauma because they only have one parent. They experience it because of economic reasons.

Em, you just proved my point I think. Children that have two parents do better than parents that only have on parent. Now, one could argue this is to do with socio economic factors and that may be a factor. However, to put all the emphasis on that and that only is dishonest and studies have found it hard to find a definative link.

http://www.canpopsoc.org/journal/CSPv32n1p29.pdf

Amato (1996) argues that single mothers often experience economic hardship because of the divorce, which translates into the inability to provide additional resources such as educational games, computers, books or private lessons to their children (Amato, 1996; see also Diekmann and Engelhard, 1995). Amato’s (1996) arguments, however, could not be verified, as no evidence of a strong association between socio-economic status and divorce behaviour was found. Similarly, McLanahan and Bumpass (1988) and Diekmann and Engelhardt (1995) could not find enough valid evidence to prove that the effect of parental divorce operates through the socio-economic deprivation. They argued that for children growing up with one parent because of death, the effects of economic deprivation should be similar.

To say that its all down to economic reasons is not true.

http://www.pitt.edu/ppcl/Publications/chapters/children_of_divorce.htm

Although many children from divorced families will never show signs of severe psychopathology, a substantive body of research indicates that divorce does place children at an increased risk for three different types of adjustment difficulties: (1) externalizing problems, (2) internalizing problems, and (3) cognitive deficits (Amato & Keith, 1991; Emery, 1988; Wallerstein, 1991; Zill, Morrison, & Coiro, 1993).

bodice ripper

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

As polygamy in practise has for the most part always been one man and multiple women, saying that polygamy doesn't degrade women is frankly ignorant.

Deciding for me (as a female...) that such an arrangement, if entered of my own free will, must me degrading, is degrading. I am an adult.

jank

NiallSparky wrote: »

Care to provide any of these statistics? Too many people use statistics today without having received any training in how to use them properly.

You're falling victim of the fallacy that correlation equals causation. It doesn't. The biggest factor in a parent's influence on a child's development is how much care and love they have for the child. Perhaps a greater proportion of single parents care less, this however doesn't mean that single parent families are any worse for children. That's a statistical assumption that is being made, not a categorical fact.

There has been a lot of peer reviewed research into this topic and the general consensus is that children who grow up in two parent families do better in almost all areas than children from single parent families, either due to divorce or never marrying. I have provided some links above but here are some more.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/sp131.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5552846/Divorces-cause-children-to-turn-to-alcohol.html

http://www.mollybkenny.com/news/new-study-divorce-affects-high-school-dropout-rate20100714.cfm

http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20101122/children-of-divorce-face-higher-stroke-risk

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mandy-walker/what-the-longevity-projec_b_1319557.html

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/512757/

http://media.utoronto.ca/media-releases/children-of-divorced-parents-more-likely-to-start-smoking/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-divorce-children-idUSTRE7510JF20110602

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

From the above:

The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families. Fathers typically offer economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers. This is especially true for families with adolescent boys, the most crime-prone cohort. Children from single-parent families are more prone than children from two-parent families to use drugs, be gang members, be expelled from school, be committed to reform institutions, and become juvenile murderers. Single parenthood inevitably reduces the amount of time a child has in interaction with someone who is attentive to the child's needs, including the provision of moral guidance and discipline. According to a 1993 Metropolitan Life Survey, "Violence in America's Public Schools," 71 percent of teachers and 90 percent of law enforcement officials state that the lack of parental supervision at home is a major factor that contributes to the violence in schools. Sixty-one percent of elementary students and 76 percent of secondary children agree with this assessment.

So with the weight of evidence supporting my case what should we do about this massive problem? Do the traditional left wing parties even care about this problem or do they just want more taxpayers money thrown at it.

Coeurdepirate

bodice ripper wrote: »

Deciding for me (as a female...) that such an arrangement, if entered of my own free will, must me degrading, is degrading. I am an adult.

What part of 'in practise' do you not understand? Where did I use the word must? If you wish to believe that women are treated equally to men in real polygamous relationships, then you are deluded and ignorant. Discussing hypothetical gender-neutral polygamous relationships is a waste of time, as in the real world they don't tend to occur too often.

floggg

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Don't forget Norris topped online polls and also topped a red c poll to win the presidential election, he finished 5th out of 7 with 6.2% of the Vote, that was with a 56% turnout.
I don't know could you read anything into those figures, does it reflect the possible power of the pro vote?
Were still in a place where about 50% of the population don't use the internet so are not liberally influenced. I think it'll be hard pressed to pass at the election box.
Just basing an outcome on what we know so far is 43% of the internet are against and i'll bet a vast majority of the 50% not on the internet are also against, tipping the no vote well over 50% possibly up to 75% against.

That's all pie in the sky, but it seems to be all we have to go on besides the majority who took part in the review that's progressing the legislation.

You see, some smart people have actually considered that Internet polls might be representative and show a bias towards younger people.

So they engaged traditional polling firms to do a poll. A number of them actually.

And you're right - they did get figures at approximately 75%.

The only flaw in your logic was that the 75% were in favour of marriage equality.

But hey, at least you guess the number right.

If you want links, google em. I'm on my phone.

Amirani

jank wrote: »

There has been a lot of peer reviewed research into this topic and the general consensus is that children who grow up in two parent families do better in almost all areas than children from single parent families, either due to divorce or never marrying. I have provided some links above but here are some more.

Thanks for the links.

Firstly, each one of those links talk about the negative effect that divorce has on children, not necessarily the negative effect that having just one parent in the household creates.

There certainly seems to be a reasonable correlation between divorce and poor school scores/involvement in crime based on those articles. None of the links however provides any actual figures. There's no information about probabilistic results or confidence intervals from what I can see.

That said, I don't have enough time to give them a thorough read as I'm in work. I might get a round to it later.

jank wrote: »

So with the weight of evidence supporting my case what should we do about this massive problem? Do the traditional left wing parties even care about this problem or do they just want more taxpayers money thrown at it.

There's not really anything to be done about it. I'd wager that living with two parents who hate each other is far more damaging than living with a divorced parent.