Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sexual Orientation

Options
1…89101214

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭Wiggles88


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Or people aren't just making it up. I personally am flabbergasted at how dismissive people have become of the importance of a father and mother. How easy it has been for people to give absolutely no importance to the distinctive roles of a mother and a father. To the extent that I don't think that there is anything that can be said to argue against it. Similarly when people in abortion debates call the unborn parasites. Once such jumps are made, I certainly don't think I possess the skills or abilities to bring them back to reason.

    Firstly no one on this thread has cited anything better than "its common sense" when asked to show how opposite sex parents are intrinsically better than same sex ones.

    Secondly if one were truly concerned about a child getting both male and female input surly they would be equally outraged at a single parent, no?

    Finally I'm not sure what abortion has to do with any of this, that is an entirely different issue all together and mentioning it serves no purpose other than to take away from the issue being discussed.


  • Options
    #333
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Seeing as my last was removed, here it is again.

    Phil likes to claim he has evidence, it has previously been dis-proven numerous times.

    So once again, here's a wonderful post from oldrnwisr.

    Anyway. As it currently stands, homosexuals can get legally married in Ireland, they can adopt children, they can raise children and they can (for the most part) live like any heterosexual couple can. What it comes down to now is equalising the legal matters along the lines of taxes and inheritance.

    I'd greatly appreciate any Christian here who can cite a section of the bible where it says Gay people can't have the same legal rights.

    With all this said, and Phil is saying it's purely about 'a mother and a father', then does Phil think that single parents should not have children too?
    Do we include a parent who dies? What about someone who simply doesn't know the father? What about rape victims?

    Where does it end?
    So please, tell us Phil, is it really about 'mother and father' being best (which it isn't, though two parents are shown to be more affective, gender is irrelevant), who is it simply because on religious grounds, you don't like homosexuality.


  • Options
    #334
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    philologos wrote: »
    I disagree. That's all. The union between a man and a woman is fundamentally different to that of two of the same gender marrying. The crux of that issue is family.

    There's 30+ years of research to show that mothers and fathers have unique and beneficial roles in respect to their children.

    Disagreement isn't refusal. Its using common sense to come to ones own conclusion. I don't particularly care as to being called a bigot for having a different opinion about marriage. Ironically that's the intolerance

    There are two fundamental problems with your argument.

    Firstly, you claim that there is 30+ years of research to show that mothers and fathers have unique and beneficial roles wrt children. There is research OK but it doesn't say what you're claiming. In fact it does just the opposite:
    First, fathers and mothers influence their children in similar rather than dissimilar ways.

    Stated differently, students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent involved is a mother or father.

    Secondly, as research has unfolded, psychologists have been forced to conclude that the characteristics of individual fathers - such as their masculinity, intellect, and even their warmth - are much less important, formatively speaking, than are the characteristics of the relationships they have established with their children.

    Marital harmony is a consistent correlate of child adjustment, whereas marital conflict is a consistent and reliable correlate of child maladjustment.

    The quote above is from The Role of the Father in Child Development by Michael Lamb. It is a meta-analysis of the existing body of research on the subject of parental influence on the outcomes of children. The research has repeatedly shown that the characteristics that actually have an impact on the outcomes of children are not gender-related.


    Secondly, you are claiming that the difference resulting from the uniqueness of a male-female parenting paradigm is such that a male-female headed household is better or optimal for the outcomes of children.

    First of all, that's demonstrably false. The consensus of the experts in the area is that there is no difference between heterosexual and same-sex married couples regarding child welfare. I am indebted to Sonics2k for linking to this research, thank you. Even when this issue has been raised in court the same conclusion has been reached:

    "The quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field. Many well renowned, regarded and respected professionals have [produced] methodologically sound longitudinal and cross-sectional studies into hundreds of reports. Some of the longitudinal studies have tracked children for six, ten and fourteen years. The starting ages of the children in the longitudinal studies has varied from birth, six to ten years old and followed them throughout childhood, adolescence and into adulthood. The studies and reports are published in many well respected peer reviewed journals including the Journal of Child Development, the Journal of Family Psychology, the Journal of Child Psychology, and the Journal of Child Psychiatry. Each of the studies and hundreds of reports also withstood the rigorous peer review process and were tested statistically, rationally and methodologically by seasoned professionals prior to publication. In addition to the volume, the body of research is broad; comparing children raised by lesbian couples to children raised by married heterosexual couples; children raised by lesbian parents from birth to children raised by heterosexual married couples from birth; children raised by single homosexuals to children raised by single heterosexuals; and children adopted by homosexual parents to those raised by homosexual biological parents, to name a few. These reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. 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."

    This is the judgement passed in the Florida Supreme Court striking down the law prohibiting gay adoption.

    Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, Docket No. 3D08-3044


    Secondly, regarding your optimal claim, we are talking about marriage. What the hell has children got to do with this argument? If child welfare were truly a concern then there would be a legal prohibtion against single parents since there are marked disadvantages for child outcomes in the research. This is a debate about marriage. Even if two people make an oath that they never intend to have children, that should not be an impediment to them getting married.


  • Options
    #335
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Seems paedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a choice, according to James Cantor, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, a psychologist and senior scientist at the Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health. He is editor in chief of "Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment" and blogs at Sexology Today:
    Do pedophiles deserve sympathy?
    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html

    What does that say for the 'I was born that way' defence offered for homosexuality? A brother puts it well on this short piece I posted on another thread:
    The Divine Institution of Marriage
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt-Bdcd8cZ0&feature=youtu.be

    NOTE: According to WND, James Cantor is a homosexual psychologist and scientist at the Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health who serves as associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto.
    HAS THE NORMALIZING OF PEDOPHILIA BEGUN?
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/has-the-normalizing-of-pedophilia-begun/


    *********************************************************************
    Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
    Shame on you for trying to draw parallels between the two.

    Wasn't it your institution that was responsible for the rape and violation of thousands of innocent children??? Hardly in a position to preach now, are we?


  • Options
    #336
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    WOW, just wow!
    That has to be trolling.
    Must. Not. Feed.

    Lol the sign over there says "please do not feed the god freaks" :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    NOTE: According to WND, James Cantor is a homosexual psychologist and scientist at the Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health who serves as associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto.
    HAS THE NORMALIZING OF PEDOPHILIA BEGUN?
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/has-the-normalizing-of-pedophilia-begun/

    WorldNewsDaily? These morons make Fox News look normal.


  • Options
    #338
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Shame on you for trying to draw parallels between the two.

    Wasn't it your institution that was responsible for the rape and violation of thousands of innocent children??? Hardly in a position to preach now, are we?

    No, I don't think the Baptist Church that Wolfsbane belongs to has been responsible for the rape and violation of thousands of innocent children. :rolleyes:

    Wolfsbane made a valid logical point - that claiming 'I was born that way' does not validate a behaviour as morally OK. His citation of paedophilia is a very effective use of reductio ad absurdum (using and extreme case to demonstrate the absurdity of bad logic).

    He did not equate homosexuality with paedophilia, and I find it very depressing that our standards of education are so poor as to lead anyone to claim that he did so.


  • Options
    #339
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    PDN wrote: »
    Wolfsbane made a valid logical point

    No he didn't. Me made an incoherent and careless point. He said "I was born this way" is not a valid defence of homosexuality, and then in the very same paragraph, links to a video that contains the line:

    "Same sex marriage is simply unnatural"

    "I was born this way", assuming it is true, is a perfectly legitimate defence against the assertion that same sex marriage is simply unnatural.


  • Options
    #340
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    No it isn't enough. It's a legal recognition of mutual dependency. Marriage is more than that, it's society validation of the love between two people.
    OK you refuse to see it as valid but not everyone sees it your way.
    PDN wrote: »
    No, I don't think the Baptist Church that Wolfsbane belongs to has been responsible for the rape and violation of thousands of innocent children. :rolleyes:

    Wolfsbareductio ad absurdumne made a valid logical point - that claiming 'I was born that way' does not validate a behaviour as morally OK. His citation of paedophilia is a very effective use of reductio ad absurdum (using and extreme case to demonstrate the absurdity of bad logic).

    He did not equate homosexuality with paedophilia, and I find it very depressing that our standards of education are so poor as to lead anyone to claim that he did so.
    But it isn't really a good example of reductio ad absurdum as the differences, particularly around consent, mean that a comparison is really ineffective. It would have been more effective to use the comparison of unmarried heterosexual couples that have consenting sex. That would have satisfied all his requirements apart from, that is, his apparent obsession with what homosexual men get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom.

    This whole "hate the sin not the sinner" line is starting to get quite tiresome as well. There comes a point where no now often one repeats the line it starts to look an awful lot like bigotry.

    MrP


  • Options
    #341
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Seeing as my last was removed, here it is again.

    Phil likes to claim he has evidence, it has previously been dis-proven numerous times.

    So once again, here's a wonderful post from oldrnwisr.

    Anyway. As it currently stands, homosexuals can get legally married in Ireland, they can adopt children, they can raise children and they can (for the most part) live like any heterosexual couple can. What it comes down to now is equalising the legal matters along the lines of taxes and inheritance.

    I'd greatly appreciate any Christian here who can cite a section of the bible where it says Gay people can't have the same legal rights.

    With all this said, and Phil is saying it's purely about 'a mother and a father', then does Phil think that single parents should not have children too?
    Do we include a parent who dies? What about someone who simply doesn't know the father? What about rape victims?

    Where does it end?
    So please, tell us Phil, is it really about 'mother and father' being best (which it isn't, though two parents are shown to be more affective, gender is irrelevant), who is it simply because on religious grounds, you don't like homosexuality.

    Leaving the childish nonsense aside:

    It's not a "lie" as you previously posted before your post got deleted. There's a lot of research that suggests that the nuclear family is most beneficial to children. There's also been significant research done into the differing roles of mothers and fathers. Just because oldrnwisr can quote one text which disagrees with that, doesn't mean that there isn't a large body of evidence arguing otherwise.

    In short:
    Here's an article which makes a broad overview of what evidence there is for gender complementarianism being beneficial in child rearing: (You can look at the citations if you want to follow any of this stuff up).
    http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/fathers.php

    Here's a federal report which looks at the distinct influence of fathers from mothers in child rearing, pointing out some clear differences between the two:
    http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm

    In short there's far far more of where this comes from.

    So yes, it really is because I believe that a mother and a father are best for children that I believe that traditional marriage should be left alone.

    You mention that same sex couples can be married, but they can't. They can enter into a civil partnership. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman currently both in UK law and Irish law.

    Nothing has been disproven about the papers that discuss the difference between parental roles in a childs life. Either this research is all wrong, or it is right. Either fathers and mothers do make a real difference in a child's life or they don't. I.E - They have distinct roles.

    I don't believe that a father can be replaced truly with a woman, or vice versa in respect to a mother.

    I don't know of anyone who would say that single parenting is ideal in comparison to having both a mother and a father growing up. Not even many of the actual parents.

    As for Christianity and the Bible, that is separate to the legal discussion. But Christians believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the correct place for sexual expression is within a marriage.

    Now, let's look to "bigot" and "intolerance" and see if they imply in this situation.

    bigot - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"

    intolerance - unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs

    Firstly, intolerant towards others? - No, I think that people have the right to clearly hold different opinions to my own. I think that people are also entirely free to live and campaign for different issues than I would ordinarily agree with. I think what's intolerant in this case is the unwillingness of people to accept firstly that some people don't think that same-sex "marriage" should be legal because of the importance of father and mother roles in a childs life, and secondly that Christians don't believe that sexual expression outside of a marriage is correct. I'm perfectly happy to accept that people don't agree with me. It doesn't seem that you are happy to accept that I disagree with you about marriage, and about sexual acts outside of a marriage.

    Secondly, blindly attached to my creed? - No, I've done a lot of thinking about what I believe and why I do :)

    This covers both definitions actually. If anyone is intolerant of anyones views on this thread, it is those who are saying that Christians shouldn't be free to hold Biblical values in respect to sexuality. Or people who are saying that Christians must applaud non-Christian views about sexuality. I accept that people disagree with me, but I shouldn't have to applaud non-Christian views as a result.

    Race and sexuality can't be compared. Sexuality is not biologically determined. Race is. The difference between a heterosexual relationship, and a homosexual one is simply, a heterosexual relationship can do one or more of these two things 1) biologically bring a child into the world with a mother and a father, 2) adopt and provide a child with both a mother and a father.

    Much in the same way as I don't say that atheists and agnostics must applaud the Bible and Christianity or else they are bigots. Or that atheists or agnostics must openly applaud the fact that I go to church on Sundays. Why, that would be ridiculous! I'm going to stand up for what I believe in both about family, and about the Gospel, and I really don't care about what kinds of labels you cast upon me. I'm going to live by what I believe is right. You can either tolerate that or not!

    Simply put, I agree to disagree.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Sexuality is not totally biologically determined
    Fixed that Philologos!
    Your right, like everything it's not one thing or the other but it dose have a genetic part to it.
    http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html
    By the way, did you choose to be hetro, presuming you are?


  • Options
    #343
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Fixed that Philologos!
    Your right, like everything it's not one thing or the other but it dose have a genetic part to it.
    http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html
    By the way, did you choose to be hetro, presuming you are?

    I have many temptations, the question is what do I do with them. Is it always appropriate to act on every one of them? Or it is sometimes that it wouldn't be appropriate to do so?

    Even if I applied that to me as a heterosexual, there would be a number of implications. Namely, one has sexual desires, but it doesn't mean that it is always appropriate to act on them. In a Christian context, it wouldn't be appropriate if I acted on them outside of marriage and there's good reason as to why it isn't appropriate.


  • Options
    #344
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    philologos wrote: »
    There's a lot of research that suggests that the nuclear family is most beneficial to children. There's also been significant research done into the differing roles of mothers and fathers. Just because oldrnwisr can quote one text which disagrees with that, doesn't mean that there isn't a large body of evidence arguing otherwise.

    In short:
    Here's an article which makes a broad overview of what evidence there is for gender complementarianism being beneficial in child rearing: (You can look at the citations if you want to follow any of this stuff up).
    http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/fathers.php

    Here's a federal report which looks at the distinct influence of fathers from mothers in child rearing, pointing out some clear differences between the two:
    http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm

    In short there's far far more of where this comes from.

    Nothing has been disproven about the papers that discuss the difference between parental roles in a childs life. Either this research is all wrong, or it is right. Either fathers and mothers do make a real difference in a child's life or they don't. I.E - They have distinct roles.

    I don't believe that a father can be replaced truly with a woman, or vice versa in respect to a mother.

    I don't know of anyone who would say that single parenting is ideal in comparison to having both a mother and a father growing up. Not even many of the actual parents.

    OK, before I get to analysing the meagre evidence which philologos has presented in support of his argument, there's one thing we need to get abundantly clear.

    There are two issues being discussed here. One is the issue of gender roles in parenting and how this influences the outcomes of children. The other is whether or not a male-female marriage can be shown to be ideal or optimal or in some way superior to same-sex marriage. These are two distinct issues which philologos is trying to conflate to muddy the waters.

    Now for the first issue, the role of gender in parenting. As I stated in my previous post the quote I used came from a meta-analysis, not a single study but a review of the established research on the subject. The studies themselves don't say what you claim they say either.

    How does the gender of parents matter?

    Same-Sex Parenting and Child Development: Reviewing the Contribution of Parental Gender

    Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and deliquency

    Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?


    Now, with regard to your first link, nothing in that article goes in any way towards contradicting the established consensus. The article through irrelevance and gross misinterpretation manages to miss the point of the research into gender-related parenting entirely. Some examples from your article to illustrate my point:

    "The father's special influence on his school-aged children's development of personal morality lasts into adulthood. Adults whose fathers had been highly involved when they were children were more tolerant and understanding and engaged in more socially responsible behaviour than those with less involved fathers."

    The point being made here is that involvement is a key factor in child outcome and nothing in the underlying study indicates that this is tied to the gender-specific characteristics of the father.

    " Even when fathers provide only limited attention, warmth, and affection, and are not around all of the time, their children benefit from their influence in terms of adjusting to new experiences, having stable emotions, and knowing how to get along with others."

    Again here, it is not the gender-specific characteristics of the father which is an influence but the degree to which the children receive attention, warmth and affection from them.

    The article fundamentally misunderstands the causal factors in the relationships between parents and children and as far as this debate is concerned is about as useful as tits on a bull.

    We understand the causal factors which result in positive outcomes for children:

    "Marital harmony is a consistent correlate of child adjustment, whereas marital conflict is a consistent and reliable correlate of child maladjustment."

    Authoritarian parenting, martial conflict, violence, substance abuse and lack of involvement all contribute to poor child outcomes but having two parents of the same gender do not.

    Before, I continue, since I mentioned consensus I want to make another important point. There are always going to be contrary studies in any research field. That is completely irrelevant. What matters is what the entire body of research indicates and what the scientific consensus is. Oh, and you're wrong, Phil, there isn't either a large body of research in this area in general or as you claimed a large body of research which supports your argument. The authors of the studies, none of which you seem to have read, are at pains to point out that this is still a relatively new area of research.


    Now, on to the second issue. I would have thought that both my last post and my older post which Sonics linked to should have been conclusive enough but obviously not.

    Firstly, since you bring up the US government, it would seem that they do not agree with your assessment either. In 2010 they published one of the largest studies on parenting comparing various family forms.

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

    This is the report which Al Franken refers to in the video in Sonics' link.

    The amount of evidence and consensus in this area is overwhelming. Let me say it in one more time, there is no difference between a married hetereosexual couple and a married homosexual couple with regard to child outcomes. No ideal, no optimum, no difference. You can disagree all you want but without substantial evidence (which you don't have) you remain in the league of climate change skeptics and holocaust deniers.

    However, I would be obliged if you would answer the question as to what a discussion on parenting has to do with a debate on marriage? We don't legislate according to what is ideal and we don't prohibit infertile couples from marrying nor prosecute people for not having children.

    This argument is so awful that it really does try my patience at times. It is bigotry and homophobia at its very worst.

    Oh, and one more thing:

    "It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races."

    The Helen Lovejoy argument was used in Perez v Sharp to justify retaining a ban on interracial marriage. Nothing in the intervening time has made it anymore valid now than it was then.


  • Options
    #345
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    By the by, it's valid to bring up papers that discuss gender roles in parenting. If you are claiming that there is no difference between how mothers and fathers deal with their children then all of this research should be null and void and useless.

    It's the type of fobbing off I've seen many times on boards.ie when I've brought this kind of stuff up.

    Do mothers and fathers have unique and beneficial roles to their children? - Yes, they do. If that is the case, how can another woman replace the role of a father, and how can a man replace the role of a mother? - They are unique benefits that come as a result of them being a mother and a father.

    If there is no difference, all of the stuff I've cited is wrong. Either it is right, or it is wrong. There's not much of a middle ground.

    Marriage and family are linked. If you are debating marriage, family will come up right behind it, particularly because marriage is regarded in law as the foundation of the family. Certainly in the Irish constitution.

    If you want to discuss merely formalising a relationship, civil partnerships already suffice in that respect.

    I've explained the difference already about race and sexuality by the by.


  • Options
    #346
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    You mention that same sex couples can be married, but they can't. They can enter into a civil partnership. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman currently both in UK law and Irish law.

    Not for much longer. Same-sex marriage legislation is in process. Scotland have already declared; the rest will follow.


  • Options
    #347
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Not for much longer. Same-sex marriage legislation is in process. Scotland have already declared; the rest will follow.

    Indeed, Cameron has just steam-rolled over the opinions of quite a large number of people both in society and even within the Tory party.

    Democracy at work eh?


  • Options
    #348
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭Wiggles88


    philologos wrote: »
    Indeed, Cameron has just steam-rolled over the opinions of quite a large number of people both in society and even within the Tory party.

    Democracy at work eh?

    Democracy is not an excuse for the majority to steamroll over the rights of the minority.


  • Options
    #349
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    Indeed, Cameron has just steam-rolled over the opinions of quite a large number of people both in society and even within the Tory party.

    Democracy at work eh?
    All three major parties support it.

    65% of the people support it.

    Including those of faith.

    Democracy indeed.


  • Options
    #350
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    Democracy is not an excuse for the majority to steamroll over the rights of the minority.

    The people should have the right to a say on something that radically affects the structure of family, and something that ultimately affects children and their right to a mother and a father.

    doctoremma: There are a lot of Tory backbenchers who don't. And opinion polls are only indicative. For example in Slovenia they recently had a referendum on same-sex marriage. Opinion polls put it in a clear majority, the result of the referendum saw it defeated. Polls are only an indicator they are not certainty.

    As for "including people of faith". Most Muslims, Jews, and Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage in Britain.


  • Options
    #351
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    How exactly does gay marriage interfere with a childs right to a mother and father?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Quatermain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Quatermain


    philologos wrote: »
    The people should have the right to a say on something that radically affects the structure of family, and something that ultimately affects children and their right to a mother and a father.

    Exactly what effect does a complete stranger's family have on you or anybody else? As was pointed out, the people did say, and they spoke in favour of actually advancing the concept. A family is a loving entity. It is not a rigid construct.


  • Options
    #353
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭Wiggles88


    philologos wrote: »
    The people should have the right to a say on something that radically affects the structure of family, and something that ultimately affects children and their right to a mother and a father.


    People always have the right to say something, enshrining it into law however is another thing. You seem to believe that there is a big negative impact on the children of same sex couples, fair enough but did you even read anything oldrnwisr posted? The evidence suggests that you are wrong.


  • Options
    #354
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Quatermain wrote: »
    Exactly what effect does a complete stranger's family have on you or anybody else? As was pointed out, the people did say, and they spoke in favour of actually advancing the concept. A family is a loving entity. It is not a rigid construct.

    I care about marriage. Simply put. I believe the Government should put the family structure that provides children with a mother and a father first. I'm not saying that other family structures shouldn't exist, they will exist whether I like it or not.

    I'm opposed to tampering with marriage. That's it.
    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    People always have the right to say something, enshrining it into law however is another thing. You seem to believe that there is a big negative impact on the children of same sex couples, fair enough but did you even read anything oldrnwisr posted? The evidence suggests that you are wrong.

    There's nothing wrong about saying that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and a civil partnership constitutes the union between two of the same gender. They are different things as far as I see it.

    I've read what he posted, I think it is mistaken though. There's plenty that suggests that mothers and fathers have unique and distinct roles in respect to their children. Either that is right, or that is wrong. There's not much room for a via media as far as I see it.


  • Options
    #355
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    how does gay marriage stop children being raised by their mother and father?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #356
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    how does gay marriage stop children being raised by their mother and father?

    It further encourages the idea that children don't need both a mother and a father and indeed that this isn't the best family structure (despite research showing it is) for children to be raised in. It also further undermines the distinct and unique role of mothers and fathers to their children.

    I disagree with that notion, and as a result, I disagree with anything but the union between a man and a woman being regarded as a marriage.

    Note, I'm not the one claiming that others can't disagree. I'm going to hold to my views and my values though, because I genuinely believe that they are the best for society as a whole.


  • Options
    #357
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    the Christian will say it degrades the spirit of both parties by its unnatural affections and acts, and brings God's wrath for its perversion of His provision of sex.

    The Christian can say what they like; the existence of a "spirit" is entirely unproven and therefore effects of homosexuality, positive or negative, on it cannot even be speculated on. What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

    P.


  • Options
    #358
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭Wiggles88


    philologos wrote: »
    I've read what he posted, I think it is mistaken though. There's plenty that suggests that mothers and fathers have unique and distinct roles in respect to their children. Either that is right, or that is wrong. There's not much room for a via media as far as I see it.

    Any particular reason why you think its mistaken?


  • Options
    #359
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    oceanclub wrote: »
    The Christian can say what they like; the existence of a "spirit" is entirely unproven and therefore effects of homosexuality, positive or negative, on it cannot even be speculated on. What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

    P.

    Yes, the Christian can say what they like on the Christianity Forum. :rolleyes:

    If you want to discuss the subject without taking Christian beliefs into account then take it to another Forum instead of trolling this one.


  • Options
    #360
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    It further encourages the idea that children don't need both a mother and a father and indeed that this isn't the best family structure (despite research showing it is) for children to be raised in. It also further undermines the distinct and unique role of mothers and fathers to their children.
    That's a big leap. A gay/lesbian couple are married and that means that children don't have a right to a mother and father? That's just nonsense.

    It would be appreciated if you could outline the distinct and unique roles of mothers and fathers when you get a chance.
    I disagree with that notion, and as a result, I disagree with anything but the union between a man and a woman being regarded as a marriage.

    Note, I'm not the one claiming that others can't disagree. I'm going to hold to my views and my values though, because I genuinely believe that they are the best for society as a whole.

    You're more than entitled to disagree with gay marriage, but to deny same-sex couples the opportunity requires that you explain why you oppose it.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    OK, I'll throw my cards down on the table and say that I really don't know what to think about the whole marriage debate. I've no problems with civil unions that grant gay/ lesbian couples the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. However, the notion of gay/ lesbian marriage within the context of Christianity is an oxymoron. It just doesn't make sense. However, given the inevitable, I think I would want strong assurances that institutions and individuals conducting marriages would be allowed to abstain from preforming marriages if they conscientiously object to such unions. This seems like an adequate compromise.

    As for the whole "mother + father = optimal parental unit" debate, I'm again left sitting on the fence. On one hand I can well imagine that gay parents could match or surpass many straight parents. However, laws are normative and are based upon what is best for society at large.

    It seems to me that some people think the worst when they consider gay parenting. And that the children raised in such home will turn out to be morally degenerate individuals. Conversely, people on the other side seem to think that homosexual parenting is largely equivalent to heterosexual parenting. To me this seems obviously false. All of this is to say nothing about which, normatively speaking, is the optimal family unit.

    Below are links to two very recent research papers published in the June '12 edition of Social Science Research that I came across today.

    The first is entitled How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. What I found interesting about this paper was that actually asked the children of gay parents (19 years and up) what they thought.

    The other is entitle Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Again, the feature I found most interesting about this bit of research was it's criticism of the sample sizes that formed the basis of previous research and also the self-selective nature of the samples.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement