Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

Corkfeen

Terry1985 wrote: »

- costs the taxpayer more, eg. Widow/widowers pensions
- how will that work for 'deserted wives' benefit?
- automatically gives immigration rights to foreign partners
- another step towards lgbt couples bring able to adopt (I've no problem if one is parent though)
- rubber stamps lbgt as normal biological behavior when it isn't
- higher life insurance premiums for everyone of lgbt couples can be nominated as beneficiaries

The government will be changing the adoption rules next year to allow for same sex couples to adopt so it will be fine for them to adopt by time referendum comes around.:D You seem to be under the impression that homosexuality is not natural which it is. It's pretty damn natural,do you think we'll die out or something because of gay people?

oldrnwisr

Terry1985 wrote: »

You can hand pick studies all you want.

I'm not hand-picking anything. I posted just a few examples of the massive body of research which shows that same-sex couples are just as good at parenting as heterosexual couples. It doesn't matter what any invidual study says but what all the studies say when taken together. This is why I posted the consensus positions. There is a solid consensus in the scientific community that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex parents.

If you have any credible studies which show heterosexual parents are better though, I'm sure we'd all love to see them.

Terry1985 wrote: »

What does 'no difference in the outcome mean'?

No difference means that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as those raised by heterosexual couples in any metric you care to measure e.g. physical health, mental health, educational attainment etc.

Terry1985 wrote: »

How can you test that on an individual basis?

You don't. You test this by taking representative samples of a given population and drawing conclusions. Claiming that you need to test this on an individual basis is an example of the relativist fallacy. We're not talking about whether one particular same-sex couple will be good parents, we're talking about whether, on average, heterosexual parents are better than same-sex parents. The science shows there is no difference.

Terry1985 wrote: »

And at least one of them was probably a biological parent.
Do any of your studies specifically test non biological adoptions?

Yes, actually.

Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2009). Transracial adoption among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Who completes transracial adoptions and with what results? Adoption Quarterly, 12, 187–204.
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/fp09.pdf


Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?
Rachel H. Farr, Stephen L. Forssell, Charlotte J. Patterson
Applied Developmental Science Vol. 14, Iss. 3, 2010

Terry1985 wrote: »

No 'studies' are based on statistics and is have to go through each one to see if it's a valid reputable study, peer reviewed, how they sampled the people... eg. Bad parents probably wouldn't agree to a study of their children, biasing the results positively.

This is why we have large scale national studies where the co-operation of "bad parents" isn't a factor. This study, for example:

Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School; Michael J. Rosenfeld; Demography, Volume 47, Number 3, August 2010, pp. 755-775

uses census data so that there is no selection bias from bad parents not participating.

Terry1985

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Czarcasm you are the voice of reason. Kind of wasted in this pantomine thread

Ohhhhhhh no he isn't!

OldNotWIse

Terry1985 wrote: »

Ohhhhhhh no he isn't!

QED

poundapunnet

NTMK wrote: »

why shouldnt it be endorsed? its not abnormal behavior, uncommon? yes. what about gay fathers who are stay at home wouldnt be too unlikely given the current economy why shouldnt he be entitled to the same benefits that a married couple in the same position is? this kind of thinking in turn places the kid at a disadvantage compared to a hetero couples kid

What about straight stay at home fathers for that matter? Unmarried fathers' situation in this country is also deplorable, they're victims of this bias towards "traditional" notions about child-rearing too. It's a weird mental acrobatic act that many people seem to be able to carry off to think "a child should always be with their mother. As long as it's not two of them." (obviously not saying you feel this way NTMK)

Terry1985 wrote: »

Rubbish.
You're focusing on individuals rather than large scale psychological studies which do show clear gender biases.
Otherwise child custody battles wouldn't be heavily biased towards mothers.

Go on and post those studies there

OldNotWIse

Corkfeen wrote: »

The government will be changing the adoption rules next year to allow for same sex couples to adopt so it will be fine for them to adopt by time referendum comes around.:D You seem to be under the impression that homosexuality is not natural which it is. It's pretty damn natural,do you think we'll die out or something because of gay people?

Yes we will all catch gay and then be forced to marry gays and then all the children will grow up gay! Oh and lets not forget about all the tax that will be spent on the gays lavish wedding ceremonies and the huge increas in immigration into Ireland. Border control will practically shut down!

hansfrei

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yes we will all catch gay and then be forced to marry gays and then all the children will grow up gay! Oh and lets not forget about all the tax that will be spent on the gays lavish wedding ceremonies and the huge increas in immigration into Ireland. Border control will practically shut down!

Weren't you criticising this kind of comment two minutes earlier? Pantomime thread is pantomime because of.posts like this.

TomoBhoy

hansfrei wrote: »

Weren't you criticising this kind of comment two minutes earlier? Pantomime thread is pantomime because of.posts like this.

I think the word sarcasm comes to mind

hansfrei

TomoBhoy wrote: »

I think the word sarcasm comes to mind

Spelt his name wrong

OldNotWIse

hansfrei wrote: »

Weren't you criticising this kind of comment two minutes earlier? Pantomime thread is pantomime because of.posts like this.

sar·casm

/ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA
noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark

Ask Czarcasm - he'll explain it

OldNotWIse

hansfrei wrote: »

Spelt his name wrong

in·ten·tion·al

/ɪnˈtɛnʃənl/ Show Spelled [in-ten-shuh-nl] Show IPA
adjective 1. done with intention or on purpose; intended: an intentional insult.

2. of or pertaining to intention or purpose.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

Very possible. The only reasoned response I've read so far.

That;s probably because you're selectiviely reading most of these responcs, and completly ignoreing all the others.

Oh, if you ask me what you're "not" reading, I'll just link you back to the unanswered questions you requested and then ignored nd the link to a story that had nothing to do with marriage equality thay you pretended answered everything (even thoug you yourself did not read it).

In fact, no, I won't - you, along with everyone else here, know exactly what questions and what link so if you play dumb, it'll just leave this as my last word and proof that you really have no idea what you're talking about, no sensible objections to the idea and no real interest in educating yourself.

Czarcasm

Terry1985 wrote: »

Rubbish.
You're focusing on individuals rather than large scale psychological studies

Terry1985 wrote: »

How can you test that on an individual basis?

Hmm... So you tell one poster off for focussing on individuals rather than large scale studies, and then when you're shown the large scale studies, you ask how can they test on an individual basis?

Would you like to take a 50/50 or phone a friend?

OldNotWIse

Czarcasm wrote: »

Hmm... So you tell one poster off for focussing on individuals rather than large scale studies, and then when you're shown the large scale studies, you ask how can they test on an individual basis?

Would you like to take a 50/50 or phone a friend?

Can we simplify?:P

old hippy

hansfrei wrote: »

Weren't you criticising this kind of comment two minutes earlier? Pantomime thread is pantomime because of.posts like this.

Essentially the pantomime comes from those posters & serial derailers who seek to turn the thread into what it is not. You know the type "I'm not allowed to speak about this/what about polygamy/incest/animals/Barbapapa etc".

PopePalpatine

poundapunnet wrote: »

Go on and post those studies there

It will take him a while to sift through the I-moan-a Institute's site. :rolleyes:

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That;s probably because you're selectiviely reading most of these responcs, and completly ignoreing all the others.

Oh, if you ask me what you're "not" reading, I'll just link you back to the unanswered questions you requested and then ignored nd the link to a story that had nothing to do with marriage equality thay you pretended answered everything (even thoug you yourself did not read it).

In fact, no, I won't - you, along with everyone else here, know exactly what questions and what link so if you play dumb, it'll just leave this as my last word and proof that you really have no idea what you're talking about, no sensible objections to the idea and no real interest in educating yourself.

Jealous? Someone brings reason into the debate to counter your blatant lying and misdirection and I get a completely OTT post like this.

hansfrei

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It will take him a while to sift through the I-moan-a Institute's site. :rolleyes:

Is that Iona?

Amirani

oldrnwisr and Czarcasm, whatever about your views (which I 100% agree with), that's some really awesome posting*. Rarely do you get such well referenced points in After Hours.

*I'm not saying others are making less valid points, but this is some journal-quality ****. :P

old hippy

Terry1985 wrote: »

You're the one reducing people to body parts.
A mother and a father have significantly different roles in child development, each bringing completely different skills, perspectives and child rearing approaches.

Says who? I know plenty of people who are single parents and their kids are doing just fine. My own cousin (who happens to be bi) brought her daughter up (daughter hetero and excelling in college).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In fact, no, I won't - you, along with everyone else here, know exactly what questions and what link so if you play dumb, it'll just leave this as my last word and proof that you really have no idea what you're talking about, no sensible objections to the idea and no real interest in educating yourself.

hansfrei wrote: »

Jealous? Someone brings reason into the debate to counter your blatant lying and misdirection and I get a completely OTT post like this.

Em... well, Q.E.D. folks and I'm otu of here.

Someone PM me if he actually does respond with reason, because there's nothing really more I need to add.

old hippy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Em... well, Q.E.D. folks and I'm otu of here.

Someone PM me if he actually does respond with reason, because there's nothing really more I need to add.

Don't let the haters get to you, Princess. Otherwise they win.

humanji

And that's all we have time for this month. Tune in for December's same sex marriage thread for the same arguments, insults, infractions, bannings and definitions.