[Closed] attention seeker needs more publicity....

Still skipping around it then. 🙄

miketually - Member

I just think "marriage" is the wrong word for a same-sex union.

Why?

Because he's a homophobe trying to justify his prejudices.

"Gay marriage "madness" says man who believes his magic biscuits turn into chunks of Jesus when you eat them"

That about summed it up for me.

I haven't skipped around your point about children doing best with wealthy parents, Graham. I have stated that children also benefit from having both male and female role models, and given you a specific example of families in which the absence of a father results in the eldest son becoming a distruptive element in the family and in school - irrespective of the wealth of the family.

So if I give you a specific example of a gay couple with lovely kids, you'll change your mind?

I'd rather base my opion on studies which consider hundreds or thousands of parents thank you, Mike.

Your friends' children are "kids" now, it will be interesting to see how they do as they mature and enter the adult world.

I know a bloke who spent half his life being brought up by two "dads".
One of the nicest and well balanced people I know.
Only problems he's had is sh.t from idiots who thought it was wrong.

Your friends' children are "kids" now, it will be interesting to see how they do as they mature and enter the adult world.

I'm sure they'll do as well as other kids who've been brought up by gay parents.

Maybe they'd do even better if their parents could get married? Not allowing their parents to get married won't make their mums go off and marry men, so why not let them?

I'd rather base my opion on studies which consider hundreds or thousands of parents thank you, Mike.

Previously, you were basing your opinion on the dictionary.

My posts are a mixture of reporting and opinion. The language I've used makes it clear which is which, Mike.

That "marriage" refers to a heterosexula union is my opion. If you have adiffernt opion, voice it.

How well children do as a fuction of their environment, family situation, schooling and so on, is the subject of lots of research some of which I'm reporting. It is not my opinion, it is other people's work. I'm quoting it in response to posts that give alternative views.

but does it really matter that much if it's called something else?

Yes it really really does matter. If you call it something else it will be treated as something else.

To quote Zizek “Words are never 'only words'; they matter because they define the contours of what we can do.”

It's not just that it will be treated as something else - it will BE something else.

I don't want similar rights, I want equal rights. Simple, isn't it?

and Edukator - don't worry about the children thing - I'm doing a pretty okay job of being a godfather to one child and godmother to another thank you very much.

(uh uh - was that the sound of a head exploding??)

Rachel

Adam w sums the whole thing up in one sentance very well.

But to be honest, I don't really care that some old man who wears a dress says. He's not even that good a drag queen, and that hat is just ridiculous.

Perhaps we should all bear that in mind, i may even get a t shirt printed with it on, to weart on Sundays. 😯

Simple, isn't it?

Unfortunately both sides in this think it is simple.

Which makes it complicated. 😉

the children from Indian families with both parents present were good students.

So loosing a father is a bad thing I don’t think anyone will disagree. The point is the comparator should be Indian families who lost a father where the eldest did not become the “father figure”. What was the outcome of these children? I assume we can all prima facie accept that loosing your father when you are school age has a bad affect on you.

Worse than if one parent was a zombie?

😀

What does "BS" stand for Junkyard. I assume it means you're calling me a liar (again)

I clearly accuse your argument and not you

youe argument from authority is BS

ie you have a PGCE it does not make what you say true. I have PGCE all frogs can fly as a far more extreme example.
I did more that that I explained why it is not a great study and why there is debate. Do you wish me to quote papersback to you? Will that then prove my point there is a debate and it is not conclusive or as easy/simple as you portray?

As a psychologist you should know how people react when you acuse them of lying and what other people will think of the accuser when it's clear i'm not lying

Yes they all seem to be taking your side and thinking poorly of me on this thread. Lets not get side tracked by acrimony or ad hominems

The paper I quoted states children with same-sex parents do less well, I've linked it, that doesn't make me a BSer.

Its all correlation anyway so it is quite weak as we would still need to know the reason why this state [same sex] has the bad affect*

Given you a specific example of families in which the absence of a father results in the eldest son becoming a distruptive element in the family and in school - irrespective of the wealth of the family.

That is an anecdote and not actually research and see above - you are nt using the correct comparator for "disruptive element" and need to see what happens if they dont..I would refer some actual research rather than your account of what your lecturer [ a teacher I would assume] said about this

I'd rather base my opion on studies which consider hundreds or thousands of parents thank you, Mike

Oh the irony
*Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.41 Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents.42 Children of gay or lesbian parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment.43 However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.

Again I think we can all accept that divorce is bad [less good than happily married parents] for kids however

Considerable evidence exists that a conflict-ridden marriage jeopardizes the well-being of children (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989). Based on this, ending a conflict- ridden marriage may actually boost rather than undermine children’s wellbeing.Recent evidence suggests that children in divorced single parent families
do better than children in high conflict, intact families (Amato, 1993; Amato & Keith, 1991; Peterson, 1986; Peterson & Zill, 1986). In fact, a review of 92 studies documented strong and consistent support for the parental conflict explanation of the differences in child well-being between divorced and nondivorced
families (Amato, 1993; Amato & Keith, 1991).

[paper cited in your paper]

Yes, you're probably right, Spin.

I do understand why an organisation that is seeing so many of their systems dismantled over recent years might rebel against another one being pulled out of their control. It can't be easy.

Rachel

ad hominems

What about arguments ad homomen?

I'd accept them as valid in this case...

Edit: If I have a fault it's a slight tendency to flippancy.

@Spin - made me laugh, anyway!

Wow, good work JY, the conclusions of the paper cited by the paper cited by Edukator are pretty conclusive.

Lifer - Member
4 pages in and you can't tell?

I can tell that it matters to the half dozen or so posters that are making regular and valid arguments, however in a forum full of people that love to argue the t0ss I'm surprised there aren't more vocal and polarised opinions being put forward. (Perhaps we need to wait for Eastenders to finish!)

That in itself speaks volumes, so when you extrapolate out to a largely apathetic nation is it any wonder that it's only discussed when some old codger comes out to make an inflammatory statement on behalf of an organisation that has a fraction of the influence it would like? Most people don't know or care enough about this issue to even have an opinion (in my opinion).

So, Junkyard, in terms of well being of the children we now have:

Good: united heterosexual parents

Not so good: divorced parents, conflictual heterosexual parents that haven't yet divorced, same-sex parents.

You can subdivide the groups as much as you like (united/conflictual married) and find as many exceptions as you like but taken overall the studies say children do best with married heterosexual parents. I could start to divide same-sex couples up into stable/conflictual/happy/unhappy etc. but it would simply reveal subtrends within the overall trend - which says that on this point at least, the Cardinal has a point.

In my opinion trends aren't justification enough to discriminate against entire groups which brings us to issues such as should gays have the right to adopt; I said something earlier about each case on its merits.

I don't see the irony BTW, just a clumsy attempt to mock me.

is it any wonder that it's only discussed when some [b]old codger comes out[/b] to make an inflammatory statement on behalf of an organisation that has a fraction of the influence it would like?

Must have missed that that he had come out, i knew all along of course. 😯

project - Member
Must have missed that that he had come out, i knew all along of course.

Aren't they all just one small slip from being outed?

You know it is a hard life being gay. Every day - every SINGLE day - I have to work my utmost to bring about the destruction of morality. The latest ruse amongst us gays is to get married. That'll do it for sure. I can see cracks in the sky now as it is about to cave in. (We also get Tesco Clubcard points for every conversion. I'm working up to a new coffee machine.)

The next idea I have forwarded onto central command: Gay Lesbian And Metrosexual Order, Underhanded Resistance Of United Sodomites (G.L.A.M.O.U.R.O.U.S. for short) is to infiltrate society with older creepy men who wear purple dresses and badly-fitting hats.

Oh, wait.... 😀

😀

He's not a gay, he's a very naughty boy

Good: united heterosexual parents
Not so good: divorced parents, conflictual heterosexual parents that haven't yet divorced, same-sex parents.

You can subdivide the groups as much as you like (united/conflictual married) and find as many exceptions as you like but taken overall the studies say children do best with married heterosexual parents

Rightio, can I subdivide based on other studies then?

Good: united heterosexual, high-income, white, non-immigrant, tall, good looking parents, whose parents also had successful marriages and live nearby to provide a support network.

Not so good: everyone else.

Would you be so happy to defend the Cardinal if he'd said that?
Or is it just that his particular prejudice matches your own?

You know it is a hard life being gay. Every day - every SINGLE day - I have to work my utmost to bring about the destruction of morality.

Your marriage destroys the sanctity of Elizabeth Taylor's marriages! ALL OF THEM!

I'm still baffled that Catholic cardinals see fit to comment on relationships and family. They're [i]celibate[/i]. It's like being lectured on the best way to cook a steak by a life-long vegan, only more ridiculous.

OH FFS toast leave the vegans out of this we are a terribly persected minority and you need to take our rights seriously
Al vegan children are happier, live longer, and have better outcomes than meat eaters. The only draw back, if you can call it that, is they are prone to making stuff up on the internet to justify their diet like their parents 😀

So, Junkyard, in terms of well being of the children we now have:
Good: united heterosexual parents

Not so good: divorced parents, conflictual heterosexual parents that haven't yet divorced, same-sex parents.

Deary me read the link
[b]many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents[/b]
its the samegroup – there has not been the acceptance of gays to do a proper longitudinal study unless you know different.Even then it would seem obvious they experience worse treatment CONFLICT [ peer and society in general] than married heterosexuals.

You can subdivide the groups as much as you like (united/conflictual married) and find as many exceptions as you like but [b]taken overall the studies say children do best with married heterosexual parents.[/b]

No it clearly says they do best with HAPPILY married heterosexual parents – being heterosexual , unhappily marries and having conflict wont help your kids...so we know whatever the reason is for the good outcome it is not due to the opposite genders of the people on the marriage certificate. It is down to parenting, wealth, happiness and a variety of other factors. The marriage certificate gives no magical powers that make you a better parent that someone who does not have one.- perhaps we should work out what these things are and try and help everyone achieve it even the gays?

I could start to divide same-sex couples up into stable/conflictual/happy/unhappy etc. but it would simply reveal subtrends within the overall trend - which says that on this point at least, the Cardinal has a point.

Which is what? they are the same as some heterosexuals, better than some and worse than some. That point would stop almost all of us having kids.

In my opinion trends aren't justification enough to discriminate against entire groups which brings us to issues such as should gays have the right to adopt; I said something earlier about each case on its merits.

Doubt anyone disagrees [cardinal aside] as long as we agree in principle if they are good enough their sexuality is irrelevant ...the same view we have over marriage?

I don't see the irony BTW, just a clumsy attempt to mock me.

You were being hypocritical you give the anecdote of a teacher and then mention research as well.

My view is happily married people have more money and less conflict than divorced people. I see no reason in principle why homosexual people cannot also achieve this happiness, wealth and lack of conflict. Well apart form the fact they cannot be married and [many of]the same people who will not let them get married dislike them so much it means they [ parents and the children] tend to face some conflict that heterosexual people don’t.
The reason marriage is good is not because you are married it is because you are happier and wealthier generally. it is not because of your gender or you marriage status per se - ie they are not casual or all married heterosexuals would be better than all single parents or all gay parents...clearly this is not the case.

This article reviews the current research on the effects of marital conflict, parental adjustment, custody, and access on children following divorce. Evidence from research demonstrates that significantly more adjustment problems confront children, especially boys, of divorced parents compared to those in never-divorced families. However; when assessed in years following the divorce, these children are functioning in normal limits and do not appear “disturbed, “ although the media report the opposite. The article discusses an important British study finding that marital conflict and not the divorce affect children and that divorce may mitigate some of the more destructive effects.

As a result of this multivariate approach, it is no longer possible to make simplistic statements about children’s postdivorce adjustment. Contradictory findings and more complex results have forced a more thoughtful and integrative approach to divorce and adjustment issues.

That was my initial point btw.

Adam I so want to be glamorous but I am a scruffy hetty [ you can call me a married breeder if you like as long as you accept I am better than you because of this] with poor dress sense [ I sometimes wear lycra on a mountain bike for example] can your group help me?
Tesco ...disappointing what sort of boutique is that 😉

Hypocritial now too am I. Sorry, I fail to see why.

What you call an anecdote was enough of an issue for enough teachers and headmasters to make it into the things discussed on the PGCE course. Just because nobody was brave enough to publish on such a sensitive issue doesn't mean it didn't/doesn't exist. The world has become so politically sensitive/correct that objective discussion of things concerning race, culture, gender, religion ... doesn't happen. Try it on this forum and someone will be along to insult and ridicule.

Bye for now.

The world has become so politically sensitive/correct that objective discussion of things concerning race, culture, gender, religion ... doesn't happen.

I call troll. Surely?

Where does children fit into it anyway? Did nobody tell the drag queen that gay couples in a civil partnership already have the same rights to adopt (or otherwise have kids) anyway. Is there not actually an argument that children of gay couples may do better in a "genuine marriage" rather than an "almost marriage" which the homophobic part of society can look down its nose at?

tonyd - I'd agree that getting married for tax reasons is odd; but it is equally odd that a gay couple can gain the rights of marriage by basically signing a form, when you have to go though an elaborate song and dance. Someone has already highlighted the issue with medical consent / next of kin (and even the right to bury your dead partner!). But there are other issues too - some of them quite significant for couples with children. Not all cohabiting fathers automatically have legal responsibility for their children. Pensions are affected. Inheritance Tax is possibly the most significant tax difference - its probably not something a "young" couple have even considered. And if you should split up or she runs off with the postman then it could really matter.

tonyd - Member
emsz - from your internet persona you don't seem the kind of person that would be overly bothered either way. Maybe apathy isn't the right attitude but surely I'm not the only person who has other things to worry about?!

You've managed to get the fact she's apathetic about equal treatment for homosexuals? Okay. Can't say I'd agree mind you.

The problem is that the issue IS polarised (talking about one of your other comments). If you are not for equality then you're against it sadly. Sitting on the fence and being apathetic means you're against equality. I don't understand why people care about the use of the word marriage when it comes to two people getting hitched seeing as we're already over the hurdle of legal equality.

I've yet to hear of anyone come up with a coherent argument about why that word should only be used for straight people that doesn't involve evasion, muddying of the water or plain old homophobia (not accusing anyone here of the latter). Apathy is not a reason to deprive people of their given right to equality (some would say God given, no?).

I think this covers it pretty well!

http://db.tt/u8g3QoZWwy

Most people don't know or care enough about this issue to even have an opinion (in my opinion).

Probably the most factually accurate post of the whole thread.

Most peoples opinion will be formed along the lines of "we're not supposed to disagree about anything involving race, sexuality or gender because it's not politically correct, therefore I agree with anything proposed involving any of these things" ...

Still going strong this am...

... good job this isn't stw.us.com

Most peoples opinion will be formed along the lines of "we're not supposed to disagree about anything involving race, sexuality or gender because it's not politically correct, therefore I agree with anything proposed involving any of these things" ...

The sad thing is, I think you might actually believe that.

It's got chuff all to do with what we're [i]"supposed"[/i] agree with to be [i]"politically correct"[/i] and everything to do with respect, equality, freedom, and not standing in the way of people who simply want the same right to express their love that we have.

If you are not for equality then you're against it sadly. Sitting on the fence and being apathetic means you're against equality.

Wrong. So you're for equality but think because I may be apathetic on the subject I'm against it? What about the person that is actively against equality, surely they'll think my apathy means I'm for it?

That's just the kind of statement people use to force a reaction from others. It's my basic human right to not really give a sh!t either way, are you arguing that I must have an opinion? Good luck with that one.

For the record I am in favour of equality (of any kind), I just choose not to protest it at every given opportunity.

It's my basic human right to not really give a sh!t either way, are you arguing that I must have an opinion?

No. Not at all. However it's not like we have some sort of new alien species that's arrived and we're debating whether to give them citizenship. In that case, yes, no, dunno are valid answers. But when the discussion is "Should we allow homosexuals EXACTLY the same rights as the rest of us?" there is already a "No" pencilled in next to that. So it doesn't matter whether you are against it actively or just passively ignoring it, not being FOR equality means nothing will change and therefore the equality we're discussing may not become reality. To take your example, if there's someone actively against it, it doesn't matter to them whether you are just stepping away from the issue because they just want to maintain the current situation not change it. Your non-participation is not stopping them keeping the word marriage "sacred/only for straight people". However, to be my own devil's advocate, if there was an open vote on the issue with the majority winning, then yes, they may view it as the same thing.

Whilst I don't like "You're either with us or against us" rhetoric for the most part, there are some basic human rights which demand it and freedom and equality are some of those. It's the same reason that despite the fact I utterly disagree with bigots, I support their right to spout their claptrap (up until they break the law) because we have a right to free speech irrespective how intellectually or morally suspect it is.

OK, point taken. So the problem those of you who actively support equality have is how to motivate the apathetic to have an opinion and voice it. This comes back to my earlier point that I just don't think you will have much success because it doesn't affect enough people and they all have other concerns that take priority. We are selfish by our very nature - "If your issue doesn't affect me why would I care?"

IMO Cardinal wotsit does a far better job of promoting your cause than all the bleeding hearts in the media, I would hope that the vast majority of the population who take any notice of the headlines he's generated would take the complete opposite view that he is espousing.

Just to add:

So it doesn't matter whether you are against it actively or just passively ignoring it, not being FOR equality means nothing will change and therefore the equality we're discussing may not become reality

What if I'm passively supporting it? I may not be waving placards or lobbying parliament, but I'd argue that by ignoring the opinions of those who are against equality I'm actually helping your cause?

For instance, I consider a same sex couple who are in a civil partnership to be married and would refer to them as such. I may be breaking the law but I won't get arrested and the more I do this the more widespread and accepted it becomes until eventually the activists on either side are wondering what the hell they're arguing about because the rest of society has moved on.

This is quite probably already happening right under our noses so while from a legal standpoint you're not winning, peoples apathy is actually working for you, not against you.

"If your issue doesn't affect me why would I care?"

Sounds like a line from Martin Niemoller's poem... 🙄

Tonyd. Most things are fine, honestly it's cool. I run up against the occasional ****, and the fact that sometimes you have to careful when you grab a handful of tit* is a bit of a pain, but mostly most people couldn't give a shit about whether your gay straight or whatever.

But, when u come up against this sort of obvious "let's give the gays something thats nearly marriage but not quite" it just makes it so obvious that there are sections of our society that not only couldn't care less but actually want to make our lives different, and that hurts. I've done nothing wrong, but they don't want to let me get married. How shitty is that?

Btw I didn't know you get points for turning !!

*goes to get sharking hat*

* only kidding, I'd get a slap if I did that lol

Emsz, the real question is this: who'd wear dresses at the wedding**, and what would they be like? I mean, 2 big meringue dresses might be a bit OTT, and fitting in the wedding car might be a bit tricky. And who gives the ring first in the service, which surname do you adopt (double-barrelled - which name comes first).....practical considerations like this are waaaaay more important than whether an out-of-touch bloke from Vatican Kiddyfiddlers Inc approves or doesn't.

Oh - and we're all invited, right?

**That's how it's seen, and [i]de facto[/i], that's what it is.

How shitty is that?

I do understand how you feel (as much as is possible without actually being in your position), but if you're in a civil partnership then to me you're married. Who really gives a sh!t what some bloke in a pointy hat cares? If people want to foam at the mouth and tell you that you're not married, so what? You're not going to change their views no matter how loudly you shout, same as they're not going to make you straight by refusing to accept that you're gay.

To the majority of people you are married, and as has already been stated you get all the same legal rights. At the end of the day it's just a word to me, I realise this may not be the case for you but getting angry about something that will take decades to change won't help you.

You can't fight the machine, but you can very quietly give it the finger.

I think you should make all the guests wear dresses.

Most peoples opinion will be formed along the lines of "we're not supposed to disagree about anything involving race, sexuality or gender because it's not politically correct, therefore I agree with anything proposed involving any of these things" .

This is a sad line trotted out by people who tend to mean I think like alf garnett/Jim Davidson and I am not happy that I cannot say these things publicly without being challenged for my views.
Its an appeal to some sort of pointless emotional angle that PC and respect somehow prevents us debating issues of race and equality
The irony is these comments are almost always posted when we are 5 pages into a debate on gender issues, sexuality and race. It does not stifle debate
Edukator there is tons odf research out there on the issues you mention

Why do girls out perform boys
Why do Chinese kids perform the best
Why do afro-Caribbean boys perform so poorly
Racial elements to IQ tests v Cultural bias
"PC ness "does not stifle the debate IME it is a lazy slur/complaint thrown out by people who don’t like having their views challenged.

but if you're in a civil partnership then to me you're married. Who really gives a sh!t what some bloke in a pointy hat cares? If people want to foam at the mouth and tell you that you're not married, so what? You're not going to change their views no matter how loudly you shout,

Yes WE are going to change their views and lets all shout very VERY ****ing loud till we deafen their voices and gay people have the same rights and the same ceremony as straights