Fidelma Healy Eames at it again. Claims SSM might mean that Mother's Day is banned!

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Saying the same thing over and over again does not make it true.

Please point out the section of the referendum that mentions adoption.

darkpagandeath

Shrap wrote: »

Again, so? That's what we pay them for.

Great argument, Just plough ahead without any regard for any consequences down the line.

LordNorbury

anothernight wrote: »

From Reuters: "3-parent babies: Britain first to legalize radical DNA treatment"
http://rt.com/uk/235363-three-parent-babies-legalized/

Reminder: 2016 is next year.


Also, final attempt, can you please, please please answer my question?

"In countries where SSM has been legal for years (Spain, Norway, Belgium, Canada, etc.), what, in your opinion, has been the impact upon the wider society?"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94712067&postcount=223

It's really annoying when someone makes a claim and then repeatedly ignores any questions about it.

I haven't lived in Spain, Norway, Belgium or Canada, etc, so I haven't a clue what life over there is like, for kids raised by straight parents or for kids raised by gay parents. I believe that the best interests of a child, where possible, is to be raised by its biological parents.

Some of the unconventional paternity options that are lying just around the corner for us in this country, where as was mentioned in the media the other day, a gay man's mother going down the road of being a surrogate mother for her gay son's child, making her at the same time, the birth mother and biological grandmother of the child, and the gay father also being an uncle and a father to his child, if you think any of this is normal or healthy, then I really worry about where we are heading as a country:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/governments-experiment-with-the-lives-of-irelands-children-is-a-scandal-31044878.html

darkpagandeath

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Please point out the section of the referendum that mentions adoption.

Redefinition of the family/marriage. Not rocket science, since the whole bases of family law is based on that current unit.

reprise

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Please point out the section of the referendum that mentions adoption.

Why does it have to?

Should a married couple not be considered more suitable to adopt than an unmarried couple or a single person?

Ave Sodalis

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Redefinition of the family/marriage. Not rocket science, since the whole bases of family law is based on that current unit.

The redefining of family will happen before the referendum.

Shrap

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Great argument, Just plough ahead without any regard for any consequences down the line.

Is your "oh my god, think of the legislators" some sort of an argument as to why we shouldn't change the constitution? Our constitution sucks in a lot of areas. Plenty needs rewriting, through new legislation and the consequences of same. But we shouldn't change it because there will be changes?! :pac:

Dumbest argument I've heard all day up here, and that's saying something.

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Redefinition of the family/marriage. Not rocket science, since the whole bases of family law is based on that current unit.

as has been pointed out MANY MANY times there is a separate bill currently in the oireachtas that covers adoption. a SEPARATE bill. That will be passed irrespective of the referendum. Gay couples will be allowed to adopt even if the referendum is not passed.

kylith

LordNorbury wrote: »

Sorry, two gay people cannot conceive a child that is biologically descended from both of them.

As I've said, in my view, SSM is about the furtherance of the right of gay people to have children as part of a FAMILY and a MARRIED gay couple being the head of that family, at the expense of a child's prime right to be reared by its biological parents where that is at all possible.

You disagree, but I do not believe that that makes my point wrong or invalid in any way whatsoever.

I do accept though that a new act was introduced that is allowing gay couples to adopt children, and the only reason this happened was because this government wanted to legislate for SSM and had to separate out the whole question of children, and legislate for what would simply never have been passed, had the subject of gay couples having the right to adopt children, been put to people in this SSM referendum.

My point being is that it's awfully convenient that you can now argue that "SSM has nothing to do with the right of gay people to adopt children, this is a completely separate issue that has now been legislated for", when the whole debate has been specifically engineered by the government, essentially in your favour. And if you disagree, then you might explain to me why this legislation has been introduced immediately before the SSM referendum?

So, that's a no then. You have no argument against SSM that doesn't involve something that gay people already do.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Are you missing out the part of changing the Constitution ? Redefining Marriage/the family. Only Lawyers and constitutional judges will be able to give us the whole run down on the after effects.

Again, the fact that women can marry whoever they want means that marriage has already been redefined.

I wonder if at the time there was uproar over the fact that being able to marry someone of a different colour meant that marriage had been redefined, and before that that marrying someone of a different religion meant that marriage had been redefined, and before that that not being able to buy a bride meant that marriage had been redefined, and before that the fact a man couldn't have multiple wives meant that marriage had been redefined, and before that that you couldn't kidnap a woman from the next village meant that marriage had been redefined, and before that that you couldn't bash a woman over the head and drag her back to your cave meant that marriage had been redefined.

Things are constantly redefined. That is what progress is; redefining what came before.

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

Should a married couple not be considered more suitable to adopt than an unmarried couple or a single person?

No.

ohnonotgmail

reprise wrote: »

Why does it have to?

Should a married couple not be considered more suitable to adopt than an unmarried couple or a single person?

more suitable why?

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

The redefining of family will happen before the referendum.

Which simply means it can happen again. No need for a referendum.

darkpagandeath

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as has been pointed out MANY MANY times there is a separate bill currently in the oireachtas that covers adoption. a SEPARATE bill. That will be passed irrespective of the referendum. Gay couples will be allowed to adopt even if the referendum is not passed.

Never said they would not be able to ?

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

Which simply means it can happen again. No need for a referendum.

What can happen again? There is a need for a referendum. People want to get married and can't.

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Never said they would not be able to ?

what exactly is your point? It seems to change with the wind.

reprise

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

more suitable why?

Why not?

You think it hasn't been a factor before?

Ave Sodalis

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Never said they would not be able to ?

You said that family will be redefined by this referendum. It won't. The bill on children and family, which addresses more than just gay adoption, will redefine family. This referendum won't.

ohnonotgmail

reprise wrote: »

Why not?

You think it hasn't been a factor before?

So getting married makes you a better parent??

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

What can happen again? There is a need for a referendum. People want to get married and can't.

They can if they stay within the law.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

For anyone interested in the actual effects of same-sex parenting:

Quoting from this thread:

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Key papers:

Biblarz, T., Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72,3-22.
http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/pu...nts-Matter.pdf

Bos, H. M. W., Gartrell, N. K., van Balen, F., Peyser, H. and Sandfort, T. G. M. (2008), Children in Planned Lesbian Families: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between the United States and the Netherlands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78: 211–219
http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/...ilies-2008.pdf

Henny M. W. Bos, Frank van Balen, Children in planned lesbian families: Stigmatisation, psychological adjustment and protective factors, Culture, Health &Sexuality, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, 2008.
http://www.narcis.nl/publication/Rec...:uva.nl:307079

US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents , Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos Pediatrics 2010; peds.2009-3153; published ahead of print June 7, 2010
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or....full.pdf+html

Bos, Henny M. W., Hakvoort, Esther M.,Child adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian families with known and as-yet unknown donors (2007) Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 28, 121-129
http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/e.m.ha...voort_2007.pdf

Gartrell, Nanette, Bos, Henny, Goldberg, Naomi, (2010) Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure, Archives of Sexual Behavior.
http://www.familieslg.org/_comun/bib..._Sex_Behav.pdf

Henny Bos and Theo G. M. Sandfort, (2010) Children’s Gender Identity in Lesbian and Heterosexual Two-Parent Families, Sex Roles, 62, 114-126
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807026/

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

Biblarz, Timothy J., Savci, Evren (2010) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Families, Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 480-497
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...0.00714.x/full

Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & Van den Boom, D. C. (2007). Child
adjustment and parenting in planned lesbian-parent families.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 38–48.
http://www.meerdangewenst.nl/documenten/AJOP.pdf

Gartrell, N., Deck, A., Rodas, C., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2005). The
National Lesbian Family Study: 4. Interviews with the 10-year-old
children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 518–524.
http://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/...-olds-2005.pdf

Perrin,E.C.,&AmericanAcademyof Pediatrics,Committee on Psychosocial
Aspects of Child, Family Health. (2002). Technical report:
Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics,
109, 341–344.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...6c302e03b8d796

Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I., & Brewaeys, A. (2002).
What does it mean for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family
created by means of donor insemination? Journal of Reproductive
and Infant Psychology, 20, 237–252.
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiL...2002-11380-003

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


Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007


Books, Reviews, Meta-Analyses

The Role of the Father in Child Development, Michael E. Lamb

Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers and their children: A
review. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26,
224–240.
http://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abst...ldren_.12.aspx

Tasker, F. (2010) Same-sex parenting and child development: Reviewing the contribution of parental gender, Journal of Marriage and Family
http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/pu...evelopment.pdf


Consensus Positions


American Psychological Assocation

Position Statement in Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage

Amicus brief submitted in support of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenge to California Prop 8

Lesbian and Gay Parenting Resource Publication

Canadian Psychological Association

Brief presented to the Legislative House of Commons Committee on Bill
C38

American Academy of Pediatrics

Policy statement - Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents

Australian Psychological Society

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) parented families - A literature review


American Psychoanalytic Association

Position statement on Gay and Lesbian Parenting


American Psychiatric Association

Adoption and co-parenting by same-sex couples


North American Council on Adoptable Children

Gay and Lesbian Adoptions and Foster Care


Royal College of Psychiatrists

Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality


American Academy of Child & Adolescent Pscyhiatry

Children with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents


American National Association of Social Workers

Amicus brief - California Supreme Court - Case No. S147999


Child Welfare League of America

Position statement on parenting of children by lesbian, gay and bisexual adults


Legal Decisions

Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, Docket No. 3D08-3044
"As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption."

reprise

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So getting married makes you a better parent??

How did you figure that?

darkpagandeath

Shrap wrote: »

Is your "oh my god, think of the legislators" some sort of an argument as to why we shouldn't change the constitution? Our constitution sucks in a lot of areas. Plenty needs rewriting, through new legislation and the consequences of same. But we shouldn't change it because there will be changes?! :pac:

Dumbest argument I've heard all day up here, and that's saying something.

:pac: Really. It's not just like changing one part of the constitution. The family and Marriage are integral parts of it. All of our family law is based on the unit currently in the constitution. Not rocket science. And trying to shout people down with primary school level insults is pretty funny thanks for the laugh.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

They can if they stay within the law.

So people should just choose to fall in love with the opposite gender... right, that'll work.

anothernight

LordNorbury wrote: »

I haven't lived in Spain, Norway, Belgium or Canada, etc, so I haven't a clue what life over there is like, for kids raised by straight parents or for kids raised by gay parents. I believe that the best interests of a child, where possible, is to be raised by its biological parents.

Some of the unconventional paternity options that are lying just around the corner for us in this country, where as was mentioned in the media the other day, a gay man's mother going down the road of being a surrogate mother for her gay son's child, making her at the same time, the birth mother and biological grandmother of the child, and the gay father also being an uncle and a father to his child, if you think any of this is normal or healthy, then I really worry about where we are heading as a country:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/governments-experiment-with-the-lives-of-irelands-children-is-a-scandal-31044878.html

So you're admitting that you're claiming there will be some 'impact upon the wider society', without any actual evidence, even though there are many countries where same sex marriage is already a reality?


All your link shows is that surrogacy laws must be reformed, which was a well known fact already, and completely unrelated to same sex marriage.

Ave Sodalis

darkpagandeath wrote: »

:pac: Really. It's not just like changing one part of the constitution. The family and Marriage are integral parts of it. All of our family law is based on the unit currently in the constitution. Not rocket science. And trying to shout people down with primary school level insults is pretty funny thanks for the laugh.

Why do you keep saying "not rocket science" when you're in the wrong?

ohnonotgmail

reprise wrote: »

How did you figure that?

I didnt. It is what you are trying to imply.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

So people should just choose to fall in love with the opposite gender... right, that'll work.

Works for everyone else not permitted to marry on their own terms.

reprise

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I didnt. It is what you are trying to imply.

It really isn't. Please rely on my stated position rather than assume one for me.

darkpagandeath

sup_dude wrote: »

You said that family will be redefined by this referendum. It won't. The bill on children and family, which addresses more than just gay adoption, will redefine family. This referendum won't.

No I said marriage/the family. Redefining marriage will have a knock on effect of changing the current unit used in family law. Hence the other changes in the Family. The current family unit is integral to Family law.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

Works for everyone else not permitted to marry on their own terms.

Like who?

reprise wrote: »

It really isn't.

Then what did you mean by that post?

darkpagandeath

sup_dude wrote: »

Why do you keep saying "not rocket science" when you're in the wrong?

How am I wrong ? explain the other changes then if redefining marriage has only 1 effect do tell us all why the huge list of changes to the family are coming down the line. This should be good.

Ave Sodalis

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No I said marriage/the family. Redefining marriage will have a knock on effect of changing the current unit used in family law. Hence the other changes in the Family. The current family unit is integral to Family law.

And we are telling you it won't due to the Children and Family Relationship Bill that's being passed before the referendum even happens, regardless of the referendum's votes. I'd strongly suggest you look it up. The referendum has nothing to do with it.

anothernight

reprise wrote: »

Should a married couple not be considered more suitable to adopt than an unmarried couple or a single person?

If getting married turns parents into the abusive asshole that I had as a (biological, married, Christian) father, I hope everyone has children out of wedlock.

Shrap

darkpagandeath wrote: »

:pac: Really. It's not just like changing one part of the constitution. The family and Marriage are integral parts of it. All of our family law is based on the unit currently in the constitution. Not rocket science. And trying to shout people down with primary school level insults is pretty funny thanks for the laugh.

Well thank you also for a slightly better filled reason why it will be a long process (which I knew), but you're still making it no more clear as to why you think it shouldn't change. All I can take from what you are saying is that it will be difficult. Ok. But it has to happen if we the people decide that the definition of marriage should now be regardless of sex.

So what is your actual argument? Changing it will be difficult, so we shouldn't change it? Or changing it will be difficult, but we can change it if we want to. It can only be one of the two.

Ave Sodalis

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How am I wrong ? explain the other changes then if redefining marriage has only 1 effect do tell us all why the huge list of changes to the family are coming down the line. This should be good.

It already has been explained. Those changes will happen through the Children and Family Relationship Bill, regardless of the referendum. The referendum will not change anything because those changes will already be in place.

ohnonotgmail

reprise wrote: »

It really isn't. Please rely on my stated position rather than assume one for me.

reprise wrote: »

Why does it have to?

Should a married couple not be considered more suitable to adopt than an unmarried couple or a single person?

The implication is quite clear. Educate us on what you are actually saying. I'm intrigued.

darkpagandeath

sup_dude wrote: »

And we are telling you it won't due to the Children and Family Relationship Bill that's being passed before the referendum even happens, regardless of the referendum's votes. I'd strongly suggest you look it up. The referendum has nothing to do with it.

If that was even remotely true then what's the need to change the Family ? I suggest other people look up why it's needed to be changed due to the redefining of marriage in the constitution... Think people are stuck in a loop with there own agendas. I will be voting yes btw.

Ave Sodalis

darkpagandeath wrote: »

If that was even remotely true then what's the need to change the Family ? I suggest other people look up why it's needed to be changed due to the redefining of marriage in the constitution... Think people are stuck in a loop with there own agendas. I will be voting yes btw.

The Bill address multiple family issues, not just gay adoption.

reprise

anothernight wrote: »

If getting married turns parents into the abusive asshole that I had as a (biological, married, Christian) father, I hope everyone has children out of wedlock.

Aint nothing any of us can do about our biological parents and I sympathise. However, I am discussing where prospective adoptive parent(s) are thoroughly assessed.

Shrap

Roy Incalculable Bedtime wrote: »

For anyone interested in the actual effects of same-sex parenting:

Quoting from this thread:

Thanks for this again Roy Incalculable Bedtime. I had lost where oldrnwisr's most incredible piece of research was hiding. Quite literally the definitive article, I think, at least as far as boards goes.

darkpagandeath

sup_dude wrote: »

The Bill address multiple family issues, not just gay adoption.

Stop side stepping the issue. I have no problem with Gay adoption.

Ave Sodalis

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Stop side stepping the issue. I have no problem with Gay adoption.

I never said you did? I'm saying that you argument that SSM will change family is not valid due to this Bill.

reprise

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The implication is quite clear. Educate us on what you are actually saying. I'm intrigued.

No, can't see any implication. Just what I wrote.

anothernight

reprise wrote: »

Aint nothing any of us can do about our biological parents and I sympathise. However, I am discussing where prospective adoptive parent(s) are thoroughly assessed.

So what difference is there between a 'thoroughly assessed' married couple and an unmarried couple? Why should the married couple be 'considered more suitable to adopt', as per your own post?


And what difference does that make to whether people should be allowed to marry who they love anyway? The SSM referendum isn't about adoption, and gay people can adopt.

darkpagandeath

sup_dude wrote: »

I never said you did? I'm saying that you argument that SSM will change family is not valid due to this Bill.

No, It's the chicken and the egg. You cannot change Marriage without changing the Family. If you could they would not have gone to the trouble of massively changing the family.

Ave Sodalis

anothernight wrote: »

The SSM referendum isn't about adoption, and gay people can adopt.

People like to bring it up because it makes them feel as though they have an argument, even though they don't. Although, going by post history, reprise doesn't have an argument anyway and will latch onto anything and everything that remotely sounds like it's against SSM. Don't expect explanations either.

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

Aint nothing any of us can do about our biological parents and I sympathise. However, I am discussing where prospective adoptive parent(s) are thoroughly assessed.

As you well know, adoptive parents are thoroughly assessed to the point of the adoption board nearly moving in with the couple and also assessing their friends and family (I was once a reference for a couple who sought to adopt, and the questions they asked me, as a friend, were nothing short of an interrogation!). Biological parents on the other hand, don't have to prove their worthiness in order to have kids, and so an awful lot of ar5eholes get to mess up children.

Ave Sodalis

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No, It's the chicken and the egg. You cannot change Marriage without changing the Family. If you could they would not have gone to the trouble of massively changing the family.

They aren't bringing in the Bill because of the referendum though and the Bill is what's changing family. SSM will not change family due to this Bill but the Bill isn't being brought in for SSM.

darkpagandeath

Shrap wrote: »

As you well know, adoptive parents are thoroughly assessed to the point of the adoption board nearly moving in with the couple and also assessing their friends and family (I was once a reference for a couple who sought to adopt, and the questions they asked me, as a friend, were nothing short of an interrogation!). Biological parents on the other hand, don't have to prove their worthiness in order to have kids, and so an awful lot of ar5eholes get to mess up children.

Maybe we should make law's and start a licence process.... :pac::pac::pac:

anothernight

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No, It's the chicken and the egg. You cannot change Marriage without changing the Family. If you could they would not have gone to the trouble of massively changing the family.

Meh, the UK has a very similar legal system and they seem to be doing fine with their same sex marriage. Other countries are doing fine too, even if their legal systems aren't quite as similar. If we went around stopping social reform because of legal issues (such as your mentioned family law), we'd still think that having slaves is perfectly acceptable, or that divorce shouldn't be allowed.