Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
USE OF THE pill, even for just a few years, gives substantial long-term protection against endometrial (womb) cancer, new research has shown.
According to a detailed re-analysis of all the available evidence, the longer the pill is used the greater the reduction in risk.
Researchers from the Collaborative Group on Epidemiological Studies on Endometrial Cancer estimate that in the past 50 years (1965-2014) about 400,000 cases of endometrial cancer have been prevented by oral contraceptive use in high-income countries, including about 200,000 in the last decade (2005-2014).
The latest findings have been published in The Lancet Oncology journal.
Study author Professor Valerie Beral, from the University of Oxford, said: “The strong protective effect of oral contraceptives against endometrial cancer – which persists for decades after stopping the pill – means that women who use it when they are in their 20s or even younger continue to benefit into their 50s and older, when cancer becomes more common.
“Previous research has shown that the pill also protects against ovarian cancer.”
People used to worry that the pill might cause cancer, but in the long term the pill reduces the risk of getting cancer.
The researchers pooled data on 27,276 women with endometrial cancer in 36 studies from North America, Europe, Asia, Australia and South Africa — virtually all the epidemiological evidence ever collected on the effect of oral contraceptives.
About 300 women in Ireland are diagnosed with womb cancer each year.
Reducing risk by a quarter
The findings reveal that every five years of oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of endometrial cancer by about a quarter. In high-income countries, ten years of oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of developing endometrial cancer before age 75 from 2.3 to 1.3 cases per 100 users.
Although oestrogen doses in oral contraceptives have decreased over the years, the reduction in endometrial cancer risk was at least as great for women who used the pill during the 1980s as for those who used it in earlier decades.
These results suggest that the amount of hormones in the lower-dose pills is still sufficient to reduce the incidence of endometrial cancer.
The proportional risk reduction did not vary substantially by women’s reproductive history, amount of body fat, alcohol use, tobacco use or ethnicity.
Dr Clare McKenzie, Vice President for Education at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London, said: “This study provides robust evidence of how long this protective effect lasts after a woman stops taking the pill, as well as taking into account other possible risk factors such as smoking and obesity.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It saddens me to see Ireland stand still on this issue because of the misinformed qualms some people still have about gay people. Obviously, nobody has the “right” to adopt. It depends on whether they can provide a good home. Gay couples really should be allowed to apply to adopt and be considered on their merits.
A load of research (produced by independent sources) has shown kids brought up by gay adopters have no issues. They do not “turn gay” and don’t get bullied any more than other kids. They achieve as much academically and basically are the same. Our laws right now are preventing some kids from having a loving home.
Comment of the week right there. Well said!
And they dress better! ;)
The laws at the present time in Ireland are not preventing any children from having a loving home because there are very few children for adoption in Ireland and the number of heterosexual couples looking to adopt far outweigh the number available for adoption.
Yes Hanly but adoption should be about who can look after the child the best not sexuality
@Hanly, it’s not just just kids in Ireland that need homes.
Agreed. This was discussed on the Frontline last year and I recall one of 2 adult (and straight) sons of 2 women saying that the only problem he’d ever encountered with regard to his family situation was that other people have a problem with his family situation.
2 dads are better than no dad…
(GOBSMACKED!) Marry me?
We let junkies have kids. If two caring people what to offer love and support to a child so be it. If we want to take the moral high ground, look into protecting the children in abusive homes.
Of course they should. Sexuality has got nothing to do with what kind of parent a person will be!
Indeed that is correct. It is acknowledged that it is better if children have a loving father and mother and that should be the first option. The child’s needs should always be paramount to that of who is rearing them and I believe that there are some heterosexual couples who shouldn’t be allowed near a child.
Acknowledged by who exactly? Can you point to any peer reviewed evidence which shows that mixed sex couples make better parents?
Here here!!
Mark, the question was “should same sex couples be allowed to adopt in IRELAND?
It’s amazing how we lose our basic rights once we come out as gay. I was raised by straight people – my parents, grandparents, siblings, aunties, uncles, cousins, neighbours and teachers were all straight and were all influential in my upbringing. I still ended up gay. Now I can’t get married or adopt a child with my partner purely because of my sexuality. I’m a second class citizen. Criminals have more rights than me. The government needs to confront this issue and let the public decide with a referendum.
Being Gay is not hereditary (tongue in cheek).
A child that is secure and loved…is a happy child!
Nothing more is needed, as once as there is love in a home
Opponents say”traditional definition of marriage is the best way to bring up a child”. How do they know that when the other “way” hasn’t been tested yet. What the holy joe types are saying is that same sex couples won’t love their child as much as a husband and wife. Bullsh1t. At what point is this country take a step into the 21st century.
Holy joes???????????
The ‘other way’ has in fact been tested and has not been found to be inferior- see Mark Phillips post above. I’m struggling to find any valid reason apart from prejudice for people to oppose this.
I can never understand the ‘gay parents will raise gay children’ argument. Surely if that were the case, there would be no gay people.
boom. well said
That’s not the issue. What is questioned is what, as a society, we hold to be the best situation into which a child is adopted whether that be a husband & wife, gay couple or single patent ?
Policy works in general principles, not exceptional cases. As a society we need to be brave enough, and ambitious enough for our children, to articulate what we stand for.
Jesus had two dads and he turned out okay~ish :-P
We all have two dads
Eh no, he enjoyed washing men’s feet!
@MatthewMark Speak for yourself!!!
I was obviously being facetious MM, but to my mind the question of same-sex adoption, or marriage, shouldn’t even be a question open to debate. Who the hell is anyone to say that two loving men/women can’t raise a child?
The only objection I ever hear raised to it is based on some sanctimonious “it’ll destroy the family as we know it,” or, as I read somewhere yesterday, the even more farcical “why don’t we then let men marry horses and adopt kids?” If you could describe to me the “acknowledged” (as mentioned above) perfect man+woman+wains family and then point one out to me…
P.S. I’d imagine that many of the children that ended up in church-run orphanages from the 30s to the 90s wouldn’t have minded what sex their parents were if they’d been adopted instead.
Are “straight” people the only ones allowed to have ” traditional” values?
well said!
no but theyre the only ones that can have a child in the natural course of things, and maybe as such thats the way nature intended a child be raised? not stating this, just asking!
Sean by that analogy you are also implying that straight couples that have to use fertility centres are not able to have kids in the natural way! should they not be allowed to adopt either? plus i am gay and can still get pregnant so your point isn’t really valid.
If we all followed the “natural way”, we’d still be living in caves. The “natural way is just the ” God’s Law” argument wear a nice pair of Eco-friendly sandals.
What in earth has someone’s sexuality got to do with their ability to parent ?
Denying children the right to a loving home because they might be bullied over the makeup of that home is the worst excuse I’ve ever heard.
In that case, the children of crap politicians, embarrassing celebrities, mixed-race families, non-Catholics and foreign nationals should be taken away from their parents too. Children will bully for ANY reason — from the wrong haircut to the “wrong” family. You don’t beat bullies by conforming to their narrow ideas of what’s right.
Any child in the care system would be blessed to be taken in by a family that wants and loves them, no matter what their gender or orientation. I can’t believe that in 2012, we’re even arguing about this. A family is about love, end of story.
@Shellymc…. Absolutely 100% agree with you!!!
For all those ignorant homophobes that have commented, very nastily I may add on this poll I have a number of things as a bisexual parent in a same sex relationship. I have been with my partner for 7 years, she has been a fantastic patent to my son, now 16, who is not gay, very straight in fact, and no, he has not been bullied in school. Everyone knows his mom has a girlfriend, so what, he has no problem with it so why should you? None of the other parents have a problem letting their kids come to our house, have a sleep over or hang out with our son. Why should you? He is no different from his peers, he goes on the same holidays, does the same stuff, plays rugby, x-box, goes to the cinema, hangs out with girls, has girlfriends etc. So who are you to tell me that his upbringing is any way inferior to mine, or yours or anyone elses for that matter? He would say it’s just the same, and yes, I have asked him before you jump on that bandwagon. He is not a sissy, not gay, not bullied, not different. The only thing that makes him different is ignorant bullies like you. I as his parent and he as our son are not afforded the same basic human rights as everyone else because my partner just happens to have the same sexual organs as I do. There is no one perfect family unit, there never has been, married, divorced, single parent, re-married, adopted, same sex parents etc etc. There are many many bad parents out there but they, as long as they are of different sexual orientations, are allowed to marry and adopt children. How is that ok? My son has a loving family, no one else in my family is gay/bi but I turned out bi, my son is straight, go figure! Family by definition is a loving unit, why discriminate against a loving unit? And one last point Oliver, if they put a picture of two pretty blonds instead of the stereotypical that has been defined by bigots like yourself, you would say it was fake. Well for your information neither I nor my partner have been mistaken for being atypical and most women who are gay/bi have no gender issues and look completely normal, contrary to your beliefs.
+ a million :)
Homophobes indeed, born that way. So, why if homosexuals all the time say that it was not their lifestyle choice and they born that way. So, most of the straight people are born also that way and have a set of properties which you name as “homophobia”. Stop criminalizing straight people.
Angryzes, I’m straight and I fully support gay people getting married and adopting if they want.. So not all heterosexuals are against it.. Just illogical ones like you have shown yourself to be here.
>Just illogical ones like you have shown yourself to be here.
… condemnation is what we understand …
Good example of “positive discrimination” you are. I will reserve my rights to be “illogical” according to your ideology.
I have not condemned you. I do not know you, all you are to me is words on a screen so I have adressed them and nothing more.
I was very specific about how you have shown yourself to be illogical here. This is based solely upon the arguments you have presented up thread which were all based in logical fallacy, I pointed them out to you.
This is not an “ideology”, this is part of the basis for critical thinking, it is LOGIC.
Put simply a logical fallacy is an error of reasoning, a fatal presumption that shows that insufficient thought has gone into the conclusion. If the logic is off, the argument is rendered invalid. Simple.
Like I said to you up thread, if you were to study logic you would see the error in reasoning for yourself.
Only correct logical reasoning when in leads to answer which you like.
I give you my own opinion on the topic which has nothing to do with your ideology of “reduce, reuse, recycle”. Now it’s illogical. But for me – entire problem is illogical and artificial: there is no big problems to adopt children for gay, European Comission see it as violation of human rights if you do not allow gay people to adopt children.
Now, all these people are waging the war against enemy who already surendered. Easy win. Plus, illusion of human rights activity.
Angryzes, you have just proven my point.
As you will notice Ireland Was supposed to legislate for the X case quite some time ago, ECHR involved there too. The problem is not yet resolved. Homosexual couples cannot marry or adopt in this country. For you to say its nothing shows that you are making wild presumptions.
Plus, even in this thread I see that people confirm that gay people can adopt children with no problems, and civli partnership bill is very close to marriage anyway. All the rest of the issues, I am sure, will be solved in no time. But, it will solve problem of gay couples (just to satisfy their need to be like straight coples, have the same rights) but will not solve problems of children as it was already pointed out.
Civil partnership is the cheap way out of granting equal rights. It precludes homosexual partners from adopting.
Single homosexuals can adopt, but not couples – completely insane..
This leaves the child in limbo should their true adoptive parent die.
It should be resolved soon, in fact it should have been resolvers already, the fact it has not is the issue at hand.
That should have said resolved, stupid autocorrect..
It really annoys me that people out there think gay people are not fit to adopt together. BUT as a single gay we can be considered. Load of horse manure. I’d make a great parent and yes I’m ‘G.A.Y’…
We are still living in catholic Ireland, change will happen in time, but as long as bishops and the like are still getting media say and rubbing shoulders with our law makers, it will be a slow process.
of course. its the churches fault
Kids need love, attention, structure and support ( as well as a stable financial base ). The sexual preference of the parents had nothing to do with it. The majority of gay people had straight parents ( they were conceived, weren’t they ), and they weren’t “turned straight”…
So just to be clear – an individual can adopt regardless of sexuality, but as soon as they enter into a non-heterosexual relationship they are not allowed apply to adopt?
No they still can adopt but just not as a couple. A gay man or woman can apply to adopt but as a single person not as a couple.
Thanks for clearing that up Garreth! Wonder why I got a thumbs down for asking a question ;-)
My question is roughly the same. If an individual can adopt why can a gay couple not…? Instead of one loving parent a kid gets two. Not to mention the added financial security a second parent brings to a home.
I find this all very confusing and I have to agree with the quote above, this is blatantly discriminatory. Not only that but this isn’t about turning away bad parents (because that will happen anyway), this is about turning away potentially excellent parents from children who need them before the couple even has a chance to make a case for themselves. How selfish and out of touch is our government.
The fact that you need to be married to jointly adopt a child is the real issue here because, at present, gay people can’t meet that criteria. Introducing civil marriage would take care of that.
yes and take away the little protection the natural family unit has?
How exactly would the “natural family unit” be negatively affected by givingsame-sex couples access to civil marriage?
Natural family unit? Please define…. Give us a laugh!
A reply to Sean: The ‘natural’ family unit as you put it ceased to exist with birth control. The natural family unit would probably have near a dozen kids. Get past your fear of change. Straight parents raise gays kids, Gay parents can raise straight kids. It’s bad parenting I would spend my energies on. Not a stupid anachronistic stipulation of law. Think man! A gay single person can adopt, a gay couple cannot. That’s offensive to logic and reason. Not to mention gay couples.
Can you define ‘natural family unit’ Sean?
Come on down to where I work. We’re beside a health centre, a family support centre and an addiction services place on the other side. Plenty of examples of the ‘natural family unit’ to which Sean is referring, pass by our windows on a daily basis…bring popcorn ’cause I’m all out ;)
I’d bring popcorn but I’d be too sickened to eat it. The sight of a junkie roaring at an unwashed, snax-fed, toddler to “hurdyup an walk” would be enough to bring tears to a glass eye. I’m sure that junkie parent loves their child, but generally if you’re a smack fiend, you’ve neither the mental or fiscal resources to raise a child right.
Letting them marry would also take care of this (they would be married couples then) and is the more important issue I think. There certainly doesn’t seem to be any reason to allow unmarried gay couples to adopt if unmarried hetero couples cannot.
Maybe unmarried couples should be allowed to adopt though, regardless of their sexual orientation. It’s not like marriage is actually neccessary for, or a guarantee of, a lifelong commitment.
…So you’re objection is that it opens us up to the possibility of polygamy?? That’s a complete straw man to be honest. Societies should be able to make reasoned decisions on issues like this based purely on their own merits.
The law as it stands prejudices potentially loving parents based on nothing other than their sexuality. As far as I’m concerned, there’s simply no basis for this, of course suitable gay couples should be able to adopt.
Good to see resounding yes on this one…
Surely the child must be the first and only priority. Once a child is in a loving and supportive environment, then the sexual orientation of the parent / parents should not matter.
If they are a stable and loving couple then why not. There are lots of nuts out there that have kids. Why should we stop same some people just because they are same sex.
Strange question! Of course they should be “allowed” adopt.
If they give a child a loving home, definitely yes.
The very idea that same sex couples may not adopt is logical fallacy no matter what way you look at it.
People are people, regardless of appearance, sexuality, where they are from etc.. If two people who love each other want to give an unwanted or orphaned child a secure, stable, loving home – then what on earth is wrong with that?
At first, due to the attitudes passed down by existing HETEROsexual parents and the media – there may be some stigma attached, just as there was a stigma attached to having a single parent not so long ago. This is caused by societys’ reaction to the situation, and would more accurately reflect the poor parenting skills of those who have filled their children’s heads with such illogical homophobic nonsense, than the ability of a homosexual couple to parent.
The fact of the matter is, that hasty generalisations are made about the suitability of same sex couples based upon spotlight fallacies and goodness knows whatever other illogical nonsense.
There are children in orphanages all over the world who deserve better, hey, there are children born to heterosexual couples all over the world who deserve better than the heterosexual parents they were born to (as a result of abuse). All children deserve to be loved, and there are a lot of people out there who’s biggest wish is just to provide that..
How anyone can come to the conclusion that this would be a bad thing baffles me.
i’m guessing that statistically less people would be in favour of allowing this than say civil partnerships or marraige?
i think a lot of the reluctance comes from a genuine but probably misinformed worry that children will in some way suffer for this (excl the gods law argument here cos i dont think its valid).
in my own opinion any people who are patently not cut out to be parents should not be allowed to have kids – so whether they are straight / gay / abusive / junkie or whatever the case might be I would happily say that they should not be allowed to raise kids.
i think the point isnt’ that gay people will be good parents – its that they are only as likely as the rest of us to be good parents!
This argument is becoming more about gay rights rather than the rights of the child
I know whose rights I and I believe most Irish people will prioritise the child of course.
Now roll on the thumbs down
Spot on!
if a child has two caring and supportive parents. gender shouldn’t matter.
The ARTICLE is about gay rights! Did you bother reading it??
Hang on a sec, it’s becoming a gay rights issue by default… Because gay people aren’t deemed ‘suitable’ by some narrow-minded straight people to love and care for a child. To say that it’s becoming a gay rights issue as if gay people are just looking for something to shout about is a complete f***ing cop-out. Tell me; if you are so concerned about children’s rights, you would rather them stay in an orphanage than be placed with a loving, stable, responsible couple just because they are gay? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
The article is called “Should same-sex couples be allowed to adopt?”
It is about gay rights and it’s just at the top of the page there, if you want to read it.
Wonder why the media always goes at this issue from the angle of same sex couples. It’s the same for heterosexual couples who aren’t married. Recently looked into adoption myself and realised that as myself and himself aren’t married only one of us would be on the adoption papers.
It’s because heterosexual couples have the option to marry, whereas same sex couples cannot.
It appears the gay community has their day out.
Enjoy it.
Call me old fashioned, intolerant, anything you want.
I voted no because my opinion is just as valid as yours.
That is why I voted NO.
your opinion is your opinion.. but why is that your opinion?
>voted no because my opinion is just as valid as yours
Stellar logic there. You’re opinion isn’t valid if you’re wrong.
Reading your comment brought the following quote to mind: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” — Isaac Asimov
Or because you’re a backward Christian, either way I guess.
Eamon, there is no need to be derogatory to Christians just as I hope no one would ever call you an intolerant Liberal based on assumptions from a few words on the Internet.
Anybody with doubts about a gay couples ability to raise a child should watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
@Jerry D
I have no doubts about a same sex couple raising a child with love but it’s just that I worry about the child in school because bullying is a huge problem and as we all know children are cruel when it comes to someone being in anyway different .
Luke, if you look at the psychology behind bullying you will notice that this issue is a non sequitur.
The bullying is caused by an issue with the bully. The bully feels the need to make themselves feel either more dominant – as this is the behaviour they witness at home and seek to emulate, or because it is the only way that they can feel more important – perhaps because they are emotionally neglected.
Children have to learn from somewhere. If they didn’t learn it at school, they learned it at home.
The bullying issue is what needs to be addressed. The sex of the parents is quite irrelevant as you acknowledged yourself, bullies will pick on absolutely anything that they can.
A well adjusted, loved child will be less likely to be phased by bullies, as bullies usually only pick on those who are obviously insecure. It is unusual for a bully to have the guys to confront a self confident, self assured child – which would be the product of a loving home, regardless of the parents sex.
Yes they should be allowed, they’ll probably do a better job because I know a few gay people and I tell you know I’d rather a child in their care than what usually get these poor children plus they are more willing to adopt so why not help these poor children and let the same sex couples adopt? C’mon it helps all involved, we can’t deny these children a right to a loving home just over sexuality, its beyond pathetically immature.
Nature denies two people of the same sex the ability to bring a child into this world together. Nature is very clever, everything happens or doesn’t happen for a reason. The concept behind homosexual adoption is based on a dismissal of fatherhood and motherhood as one is said to be unimportant in the child’s life.
Nature has no mind nor any intentions.
And, in actual fact, lots of gay people happen to be parents – naturally.
Dud argument.
Nature denies human beings the ability to fly, therefore, nobody should fly in a plane.
Seems as though nature denied you a fully functioning brain.
But the thing is jerry, people don’t actually fly. Do they? Going off topic here but I hate when people say the sort of thing you just did. It is human nature to inquisitive, that’s why we are in planes and not up in trees ooking and eeking along with our cousins.
It’s called making a point, Diego, in a way that a simpleton like Oliver could understand. But if that needs to be explained to you, there’s not much point in going any further…sigh.
The point is that two individuals being physically unable to create a child due to “nature” has nothing to do with their ability to raise a child. You already knew that, but for some reason you have to go off on an irrelevant tangent.
If “nature denies two people” who were born unable to reproduce in some other way (being sterile or barren), does that mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt a child and give it a good home?
Diego, you knew the point being made…no reason to “hate” the way it was presented.
Even bigger sigh….
That doesn’t just affect gay couples, do you consider then, when nature denies two straight people from conceiving a child? Should they be allowed adopt? If yes, then your comment is just bigotry.
Oliver your entire comment is ridiculous, each sentence, pure nonsense.
What happens if two guys split up. Who gets custody of the child.
In ireland there is the basic “Assumption” that the mother is the primary caretaker.
It’s a legal minefield but knowing the Irish legal profession they will welcome you unfortunate litigants with open arms.
What happens if a heterosexual couple break up? It is not always the case that the mother gets custody. This is also not a reason to prevent gay couples from adopting a child. Isn’t it strange that a single gay man or woman can adopt but not as a couple.
i kind of get what your saying but theres no reason not to make new laws and enforce them because of a gross bias in previous legislation.Your agument requires that theres an inherant imbalance in every relationship towards custody of children of a relationship from the beginning. Let custody be decided on the basis of who is best equipped to take care of the child, like it always should be and not based on gender bias. Sexuality shouldnt come into it.
Agree entirely with Garreth , sorry my comment was for Michael.
I’m sure the same question applies to a heterosexual couple with adoptive children. I imagine that the authorities would examine teh situation and determine which parent is most suitable for custody.
Garreth
My question in relation to custody is very much a valid one as custody for fathers is a fractional matter in Ireland.
As a father no longer in a relationship with my kids’ mother, I’d love to have full custody of my kids. Being a man makes it less likely that this, for me, would happen.
I was a stay-at-home dad and I fully believe that there are only two things in having children that a man cannot do that a woman can; pregnancy and breast feeding. Both are kinda important. But outside of these two areas a man can be as good as a woman in every aspect of giving a chid a happy, healthy, loving and educating childhood.
This is not gender-specific. And if it isn’t gender-specific, then there’s no way it can be gender-preference specific.
So,purely selfishly, I’d love to see some public action on this issue, as it’ll benefit all straight and separated men as well.
Why is it that a single man or woman can adopt but if they enter into a relationship with a member of the same sex they can’t adopt together? That can present a very dangerous situation for the child. What happens if one person in a hypothetical same-sex relationship adopts a child, the couple raise him/her and then something happens to the adoptive parent? The other partner will have no legal rights and the child will effectively be left parentless again. Is that the case? If so then the opponents of same-sex adoption who claim to be safeguarding children by stopping same-sex adoption are actually doing the exact opposite. It’s sad to know there are so many children out there desperate for a loving family but denied it
I hadn’t even thought of that, and it is an excellent point.. I wonder why those in opposition had no answer eh?
Also, the poll shows a fair few people voted “no” and there seem to be a number of red-thumbs on the pro-gay comments but judging from the comments they are all almost a resounding yes! Why don’t all you red-thumbers explain why you are against same-sex adoption?
I wouldn’t be against gay people adopting but I would think that if it came down to deciding between a straight and gay couple when both had similar incomes, standards of living, etc. that the straight couple would get priority. This is because I think it better for a child to have a male and female parent and I’m sure a lot of other people would agree.
To be honest with you Diego on paper I would probably agree with you but in reality that’s not always the case. Studies have shown that gay parents provide an equal home to any straight one and there are plenty of straight people out there who shouldn’t have children but do. When a loving gay couple applies for adoption and they prove to be able to provide a loving home they should be treated no differently than when a straight couple does the same thing. I doubt the child would object when they are offered a loving home to go to. And when the child grows up I doubt he/she would feel anything but love towards his/her parent. I thought the below video was very moving:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
I think it’s abysmal that biological parents regardless of their ability to raise children can have children, but those who seek to adopt are put through the mill. If this is an acceptable process then anyone who wants to have children should be vetted. It shouldn’t be based on sexuality of the parents but on their ability to do the job in question.
Gay people are allowed to.adopt just not as couples therefore only one parent has rights/obligations to the child which just creates a legal nightmare in the case of break ups or death of the adoptive parent. Theres no sense in it at all for the children!
And what happens in the case of a married heterosexual couple if they break up or one dies? It should and will be the same for when gay adoption (and gay marriage) is finally legalised… That is all! ;)
Thats my point! Even in the case of an illness ‘non-family’ members dont have any rights to information or to make decisions!
It’s not a question of religion. The conсept of a family as we understand will rot and finally, will be destroyed. There is no strong evidence that same sex couples will make children gay or there is no strong evidence that these children will stay unchanged in some sort of a way. OK, give me a lot of negative votes. My next question after that would be – what if someone will ask to have second, third wife / husband? Can they also adopt children? Or each other? Why not? Whatever.
what concept of marriage? the one where two people fall in love and commit to each other for life? that’s possible for straight and gay people you know – only difference is that gay people are not afforded equal rights to marry in this country. bringing up children is a wonderful thing and the sexuality of the parents does not make a difference.. the beauty about us all is that we are brought up with different parents and different cultures. i was brought up in a single family home – does this too rot your idea of family? family is not traditional any more and its about time our government recognised this and instead of creating more fear about difference, embraced the difference.
You strike me as a person who has never read anything that contradicts your opinion.
I do understand that you will never agree with me. I have no issues of you being gay – as far as you do not interfere with my affairs. I do not want to “cure” you or condemn you. I just do my observations about current society and trends. Family is not a value for many now: so, my quesion was if there is an open way for gay couples to adopt children, why not to make poligamy legal? Why not to have families with 3 mothers and 5 fathers? Family is foundation of any society – make it volatile and you will see entire society going down. And, looks like, we will see it going down very soon. No focus, no common values, a lot of strange and different people. It’s not a surprise that China is about to dominate very soon – because they are traditional country with their constant values.
I am bemused by the tacit implication that gays have no family values. In the main, we call come from families, understand the dynamics of families and, yet, for no coherent reason, we are denied the opportunity to start our own families. You suggest that allowing same-sex couples to adopt is somehow analagous to polygamy. So far, you are the only person to make that connection. This poll is about equality for loving couples and their desire to adopt children into their families. The polygamy argument is a red herring and I’m not sure whether you are being paranoid or malicious in making that link.
You are a clown.
Alan – and you’re not a clown. You are most serious person in this thread.
>So far, you are the only person to make that connection.
Tony – yes, because I see common problem over here. It’s not about gay couples who want to adopt children – who have no other choice (and many of them would refuse if they could). It’s all about : if you can do A, then you can do B, if you can do B, then you can do C, etc. And C – could be anything, you already started to give up common values, so, system started to rot.
So, gay marriage, adopting children – why not polygamy? Why, if there are 7 consenting adults, why not?
Applying that reasoning to life means that social progress can never be made for fear that something else comes along. It reeks of paranoia. Why not simply address each issue as it arises and not refuse to deal with it in case someone else decides to campaign for something entirely unrelated.
So is this a correct interpretation? Allowing equality for gay citizens = a rotting system? Have you any idea how offensive that notion is? Do you realise that the arguments you use here were also used against interracial marriage?
Ah Angryzes, that’s called the slippery slope fallacy.. It’s an error of reasoning..
Go study some logic and then reasses your views.. It’s a pity they don’t teach this stuff in schools anymore..
Listen Shanti, go learn some boolean algebra and stop mentoring people. You talk about logic too much, looks like you have no logic at all.
What kind of logic you need if there is a fundamental difference between yours and mine values? My arguments have logic which is hidden for you, perhaps. As of me, I fully undersntand your logic. So, please, enough about school. I was born in USSR and our schools were good engough.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Values are not necessarily based upon logic. They are entirely subjective and can often be racist, homophobic, elitist, or just downright silly.
The very fact that you would even come out with such a statement shows that unlike a person with a critical mind, who would have gone off and checked out the subject at hand, you answered with that gibberish.
Fallacy is fallacy. You cannot escape that, and to think that you can is fallacy in itself (the relativist fallacy). To bring up algebra when it bears no relevance whatsoever is fallacy. To try and attack me personally is fallacy..
Logic is crucial for systematic critical thought. End of. Ever heard of a guy called Aristotle?
You certainly weren’t trivium educated, that’s for sure.
Ever heard of a guy called Aristotle? Perhaps you should go and look into it before you start making statements like that.
My education is good enough, stop trying to insult me, you just simply can’t. You have no arguments, only personal insults. I would also suggest you to go and follow an example of Socrates.
All I said was that you were not trivium educated, as a point of interest, neither are Irish people, or English, or American, German, French etc, when I first said this I had no idea you were in the USSR, you brought that up later.
This is by no means a personal sleight on you. The very fact that most places adopted the Prussian method of education is why we have so many people hoodwinked by fallacious arguments in the first place. This method of education focuses on the ability to memorise facts and figures, but not on how to arrive at a systematic, logical conclusion. It focuses on exam results rather than understanding.
As I keep saying, all I can go on is your words, and the content of what you have written. As such, I have deconstructed your argument and shown that the logic does not hold up to scrutiny.
If you are to take that personally I am afraid I cannot help you. Merely suggest that you go and learn a little about logical fallacies, which was the first thing I said to you, and what I have continued to say to you throughout. An argument based on a logical fallacy is an invalid argument, that is merely simple fact.
“why not to make poligamy legal? Why not to have families with 3 mothers and 5 fathers?”
What an idiotic analogy. Women did not have the right to vote in Ireland to vote in Ireland, and there was a lot of opposition to that, but it happened and it was a positive change. The law didn’t extend to giving horses or trees the right to vote, so why is this different? Marriage is (rather should be) a fundamental right of every human. Changing the constitution to stop marriage from being gender-preference specific will not be harmful to our society, it will be a positive and much needed change. Also, you seem to be so worried about changing the original ‘values’ of marriage. Do you have a problem with interracial marriage, divorce or atheists getting married? None of these things are negative or harmful, same as with same-sex marriage. Polygamy is harmful, however, as it gives the impression that women are inferior to men, although I would not be surprised if you were of that mentality, given your bigotry.
Oh and just so you know Oliver , the picture is of two men.
Very simple moral test for you (No offence – I really need to know your opinion):
Not all possible scenarios – just class of the problem:
1) Two gay male partners adopt 2 year old girl (like in the picture).
2) They wash her in bathroom every day
3) They help her to go pee-pee
4) At night, when she is affraid – they take her to their bed
5) They buy her clothes and change it when necessary
6) While going out – they take her to the public toilet ( let’s say in the shoppig centre ).
7) Girl grows up and she has her first period, they help her with that
So, sounds comfortable? Of course that girl will be just all other girls? Yes? Of course there is no moral issues – people of Irleand welcome all that?
What would you say about a girl being raised by a single dad because of the death of a mother? Is that not ok? I know a friend of mine lost her mother at a young age, was raised by her father alone and turned out just fine!
Or is that ok just because her parents were straight?
Also I have to add, I really don’t like what you are implying!
First of all, he was her biological father. It happens, it is not easy. She is fine, good for her. At least it is your opinion about her – you do not know how deep she was suffering.
What I am implying?
Thanks for the feedback.
That’s what most modern dads do dads change nappies dads bath their kids they do they same as their female counterpart I think you have just offended a lot of hands on dads with your assumptions
We are talking about people who adopted children. It’s not their children, two complete strangers, there are two male persons caring for small female child, do everything – not just change nappies, everything.
I am sorry, I never seen men with their little daughters in the public toilet, for example. Of course, they can use toilets for disabled. There are more delicate questions which I do not want to raise here – I said – it is just to show the class of the issues. And want to see the feedback.
of course there is nothing wrong with that! my dad did all those things with me including being there when i got my first period and was great so don’t understand your question/point! if two people or one even can bring up a child with love and openess then what’s the problem!
They wouldn’t be strangers, they’d be the child’s parents because of, ya know, the whole adoption thing.
How would you feel about a male nurse performing some of the same functions?
O yeah, I understand, adoption thing:
Another adopted Russian boy beaten to death in US
>How would you feel about a male nurse performing some of the same functions?
I do not know, is it a typical thing? Anyway, these guys are trained medical personel.
Tell me, if in the airport men will start search women (personal search) it will be 100% accepted by community? If yes – OK, it’s your right, you can live in your fantasy world.
That’s a tragedy but how is that in any way relevant? For any incident of child abuse by adoptive parents (heterosexual here so even less relevant) I could point you to one by biological parents.
Leigh you cannot compare these two values in absolute numbers, I can tell you this as an IT specialist. Please give me figures in relative numbers, lets set per 1000 of biological and per 1000 of adopted children.
But, I am sure, that there are a lot of loving foster parents, that is not the point. The point is, that, let’s say, one week after they adopted children – they are complete strangers, they have no sentiments such as – “it’s my blood”, etc.
There are a lot of loving adoptive parents, but more to the point, a lot of these parents would be vetted for their suitability as adoptive parents – this weighed against the fact that no such system exists for biological parents.
>this weighed against the fact that no such system exists for biological parents.
This is not truth, there is a system and certain individuals could lose rights to rise their own children if there is evidence of neglect.
Not the same – for biological parents neglect must be discovered, proven and even the it can be a difficult process for the authorities to remove this children from their abusive parents.
You’re arugment seems to be anti-adoption in general, not just anti same-sex adoption. If you feel that way then you should campaign to make adoption illegal for everyone, gay and straight. Since that is not likely to ever happen (and thank God), then there should be no discrimination when it comes to adoption. Gay people should be able to adopt just like straight people. Either everyone can adopt or no one (and by everyone I mean the people who apply for adoption and are deemed worthy parents).
May I ask you to clarify your question..
Are we to assume that these two men have no female friends or relatives that they can go to for advice about female problems such as menstruation?
Because that’s a large assumption. All parents consult with other parents, including their own, when it comes to parenting issues they are insure how to deal with.
With regards everything else, my dad did all that. Bath time was his job, he was who I went to for comfort. I had my mum but our relationship was quite thorny until I reached adulthood. So these points are quite irrelevant.
That was my question to you, not your quesiton to me. But just to clarify – I belevie that it is much better quality of life when daughter can rely on mother in such a questions. And in case of adoptation – suitable family could be found and must have a priority.
Other thing, you fight with windmills over here. One of my collegues was about to enroll his son into school and he was refused because Catholic children have priority over all others. Go and fight that better.
I actually agree with you on the topic of exclusion from education due to religion. I was baptised solely for that reason – I am not a catholic, I never chose to be, and the fact I had to be in order to get into the local school is wrong on so many levels, but it’s a red herring because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
And how do we know for sure that a man or a pair of men cannot provide the necessary support.. Single fathers do it every single day.
NEVER should they be allowed. What about that child when he or she comes to school age and be mentally be tortured by fellow pupils.
My kids have never been slagged or bullied over my sexuality so in fairness that argument is invalid
Ha that’s just too ridiculous to comment on
but who says they will be mentally tortured! i have a number of friends who are gay parents and they experience on the whole very little homophobia. when kids go to school they are picked on for any random thing and will not necessarily be picked on for having gay parents, most kids these days are educated against bigotry. its adults that cause the bigotry and fear of difference not children.
No
No. Just like that. Your argument?
Luke & John.
What? A very out of date, ancient fiction book?
I think some sort of technology is used to boost “yes” votes. So many votes in such a short period of time.
i love that you are now trying to steer conversation away from the actual topic, also noticed that you didn’t reply to my comment.. hmm wonder why!
I’m sure the same sort of “technology” (aka a mouse) is available to those that don’t agree angryzes ;)
Could it just be that the majority of people don’t think it is right to discriminate on the grounds of biology, i.e., both parents having the same down-below bits?
Just to mess with your head a bit, you should read this: “Biology Doesn’t Support Gay Marriage Bans” http://www.beatricebiologist.com/2012/02/biology-doesnt-support-gay-marriage.html
Do not be silly, I am not sitting here all day. Btw, I answered you. I do not think that you will like my answer anyway.
And for those who do not like my point about technology – yes, social networks are technology as well. I know that most of the “YES” voters have much more motivation than majority of “NO” voters.
your answer doesn’t appear anywhere i am looking, but that could just be technology too!
It could be just your browser. Hit F5. If you use iphone – you might see only last 55 comments, it’s a known issue.
Just the application of sound logic and reasoning. It’s ok for your gut reaction to be No. That’s just your own preferences colouring your reaction. Sit and think about it.
Fact 1: A gay single person can adopt a child.
Fact 2: A gay couple cannot adopt.
I know from experience that two loving parents are better than one.
Angryzes, of course the yes voters would have more motivation, they are the logical, reasonable ones who realise the inherent fallacy in this exclusion! They are speaking against injustice while those who oppose it simply oppress.
Oppression is far more underhanded whereas truth is bold and brash!!
>Angryzes, of course the yes voters would have more motivation, they are the logical, reasonable ones
I am sorry, they are logical because most of them are gay. It’s their fight, it’s their Stalingrad. I can understand that. Silent majority is still over here.
I do not agree with your post-modernist view. I have my values, you have yours. End of story.
Another thing, let’s talk again when only registered users will be able to vote + IP address and CAPTCHA code. Now, you can vote as many times as you wish. My logical friend.
On that point I will agree with you. I have noticed that refreshing the page when you have private browsing enabled resets the page and allows a second vote. This is why I rarely pay attention to the results of the polls here at the journal and have only been discussing the issue at hand.
As you may notice, my contribution related only to what you said about motivation.
Hi Kate
Thanks for showing an in interest as to why this is my opinion.
I really could not definitively outline this to you but I have had a very stable upbringing by my parents.
No doubt it was on the conservative side of things and probably hence my favouratism of a heterosexual environment. Especially where the upbringing of kids is concrrned I just cannott get my head around the notion of two men or two women raising a child.
I realise that extensive research has been carried out in this field and much of it shows no adverse effects on children. On the contrary.
But thanks again for your curiosity.
thanks for your reply i understand your opinions but do not agree so we shall have to agree to disagree!
Where’s this contrary evidence?
The question here is whether same-sex couple should be eligible to adopt in the first place, after that it is up to the state and regulators and adoption agencies to investigate their appropriateness, not us. There is no guarantee that anyone will or won’t be a good parent.
As to suggesting that adoptive parents are strangers, that’s quite offensive, some couples have a happy or unhappy accident followed by 9 months of expectation. Adoptive parents or parents who’ve not been so fortunate for the ‘accident’ method may have gone through years of trying and expectation and disappointment and hope…
Also, in this day and age, it is impossible to define the word family…in particular it is impossible to describe a perfect family or ideal family.
btw, are those two daddies or two mammies in the photo?
And with that crass, sexist and homophibic comment, you threw away any claim on credibility.
They obviously have problems with their sexual identity, that’s their business, but it’s something they should sort out before they trying to become parents.
İf we deem nature to know best then parents with fertility problems should not be allowed access to medical help, nor be allowed to adopt. Single parents should be relieved of their unNATURal burdens. İf there weren’t all this pesky scientic knowledge out there about the occurence of same-sex partnerships in the natural world of animals, the nature-knows-best argument might hold sway. İ sincerely hope that most people would prefer to see a child with loving and supportive same-sex parents, rather than being left to two hetero crack-heads. Being a good parent has little to do with sex but a lot to do with love.
troll alert..
Your a nasty little sh…. !
In my opinion , I don’t think they should but not because there homosexual I just think that the child will be bullied for that reason .
Guess what they don’t
Some do , if if same sex adoption is to happen homosexuality will have to be eased into society and tolerated by everyone , which isn’t what I’ve seen on the comments here .
The same could be said about a child with parents from two different races, or children of fat parents, poor parents, religious parents, etc.
Should they be banned from raising children?
Sorry, it’s 2012 mate… kids these days are well able for inclusion and equality… It’s down to how you educate and raise ‘em.
Luke while I can appreciate where you are coming from, this is more indicative of the way other children are raised.
Bullies bully, regardless of what the thing they pick on is, of your parents weren’t gay it would be because you look different. The only reason kids would even know to think ill of homosexuality is if they had learned by example from somewhere, and that would be more indicative of poor parenting on the bullies side, and this is always the case.. Kids bully because they have issues themselves, not because their victims really did anything wrong..
So your blaming the victim and not the bully.
Also your answer does not follow:
“I don’t think they should but not because there homosexual” (then why)
“the child will be bullied for that reason” (the reason being, because their parents are gay).
Don’t blame victims, Luke.
So let me get this straight… My partner (and soon to be civil partner) cannot legally adopt my biological 14 year old son, although he sees her as his other parent. I might add here that my son is very open about his two Mums and has never ever been slagged or bullied in anyway. Yes he is 100percent straight, has girlfriends and is very popular. However, if I had chosen to marry an ex boyfriend whom I may add would have made wholly unsuitable father figures – then the state would allow him to adopt my son. It is disgraceful that in this day and age the welfare of the child is not first and foremost but rather archaic views linked to the catholic church ( whom we all know harbour paedophiles).
Exactly Suzie. The well being of the child should be the ONLY concern. All adoptive parents should be screened, but as equals. They should be assessed on their own individual merits and nothing else..
The fact that the parents sexuality is even considered shows that as a society we have a lot of progress to make. The kids don’t care, and it is only by the example of adults that they ever learn bigotry.
What Katie? Some with differing views from the internety mainstream must be a troll?
Troll who knows but ignorant ill educated bigot hell yeh
im with you here. just cause u have a different opinion doesnt suggest ur consequently wrong
There’s different views and then there’s just plain offensive.
no just your attempts to rise people! oh and my name is Kate not katie!
Can’t vote for some reason. Seeing 0 on everything :-(
Hows about a new poll as in is Micheal Lowry a complete & absolute cunt ??
Before anyone rushes in to correct me, I know I mixed up biological and married at the end of my last comment. I my opinion, married biological parents are optimal, followed by a mother and father (perhaps one of them a biological parent but not necessarily).
If a same-sex couple adopt a child to which one of them is a biological parent, and the relationship then breaks down, should the non-biological parent have an equal or greater claim to custody?
Neither of them are the biological parent, that’s the point of adoption. The same is true for straight couples, when they adopt they are not related by blood but they still become family. In the case of adoption the biological parents may be dead, unfit to care for children, or simply have placed their child up for adoption
Sorry Ciarán, but you’re incorrect on a number of counts. It is commonplace for a married couple to adopt the biological child of one of them. Then you have the sperm-donor/surrogacy arrangements, or taken a step further an Elton John-style situation with eggs donated by one woman fertilised by the sperm of one of the men, then implanted in a surrogate.Howzat! Two mothers and two fathers! Presumably no self-respecting liberal could object to a sperm donation from a third man. Five parents! How could they get to six, I wonder? Maybe its because I’m old-fashioned but that stuff bothers me. And by the way, you didn’t answer my question.
Ok Mark, I’ll bite, and I will apologise in advance for answering a question with a question.
If a single mother gets married, and her husband adopts her child, then later the marriage breaks down. Who gets custody then?
Good answer Shanti. I would say in theory the parent who would best serve the welfare of the child, but in practice the biological parent, most particularly if that happens to be the mother.Imagine the furore if a Judge gave sole custody to the male adoptive parent in those circumstances-I know about “in camera” but word would get out and the Joe Duffy Show etc would be on fire. Now what if it was a female same-sex couple and the non-biological parent was clearly the better carer for the child? A lot of commentary on this issue is hopelessly starry-eyed, as if same-sex couples like the pair in the photo above will love each other unconditionally forever. Sadly, real life is often very different. I know that that applies to opposite-sex couples as well but I believe the potential for disaster (especially for kids caught in the crossfire) is greater with same-sex relationships. I might be wrong about that, but I’m sure I’m right when I say that this issue is a lot more complex than most posters here allow for. Also, I am a firm believer in the proposition that mothers and fathers are different and provide complementary parenting that is not provided by same-sex parenting. Of course there are many circumstances where children are deprived of the ideal of being raised by their biological parents, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the ideal situation, into which adopted children should be placed where possible (as it always is, I believe).
On many points I am in total agreement. Ultimately what is best for the child should be the only concern. Too many children have been left with abusive parents because of this crazy notion that mothers take precedence. I find this exclusion of fathers rights to be a terrible double standard as a father is just as capable of being a fantastic parent as the mother.
You are correct, there is some very starry eyes, but I think they exist on both sides of the coin. The child is the primary consideration. Whoever is going to make that child feel safe and secure should be the primary consideration, always.
Fair enough Shanti, not much I can see to argue with there. Except maybe the bit about feeling safe and secure. I hope I needn’t say that I agree that providing a sense of safety and security is absolutely vital, but there is a great deal more to parenting, including the provision of good example, and the preparation of the child for adult life with all it’s challenges and insecurities. My own view is that this is one area where the father’s role is particularly important, just as the mother’s role is generally greater in the area of nurturing and caring. I know there are many failings on the part of many parents, probably no perfect parents, but that doesn’t mean that the whole parenting thing should be torn up and rewritten, in the pursuit of “equality.” Thanks for the interesting discussion. Goodnight.
Again Mark, we are in agreement, but perhaps I have different experiences of homosexuality than yourself.. I know gay men who are more than able to fulfill the generally accepted feminine role of caring and nurturing, just as I know gay men who would fit the more masculine stereotype (same goes for lesbians and straight people funnily enough).
I know some I wouldn’t trust to lead by example – but then again, they aren’t the ones who want to adopt, and again, same applies to straight couples I know too..
In my view, people are people. Each one has their own mind, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, they each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and in terms of adoption they should be viewed and assessed on that alone. After all it is the child who matters most..
Spot on, Charles.
Typo in the second line of the third paragraph, lads.
have your say