Random NON FOOTY thoughts not worthy of a thread: Edition II

[Royal Flush]

So who is it that you'd like to insult, belittle and disrespect that you're currently not allowed to? Let it all out.

For one, all those wishing for a property collapse in this country.
A property collapse and high inflation and high interest rates will devastate all most the entire population and those banging on about removing negative gearing and foreign investors , they will be effected most with no employment.

That's one

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Agree with that and you spent time explaining that. Covering the context of both sides without venum albeit with the influence of your side.
I do disagree with the point about raising children. There is undisputed evidence that children fare better with a mother and father.
Even nature is positioned this way.
I also believe a woman and a man who can not bare children together should be a priority for adoption, well ahead of any other couple.





On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Actually there is no undisputed evidence that says that. Of some hundred studies around the world that have researched it, there are four highly-disputed ones that reached that conclusion.

It's irrelevant to the current survey, but still not a myth that can be left unchallenged.

And when you consider that same sex couples can only have children if they plan carefully, and usually get vetted for their suitability (either at medical or legal stages of the process), it's not super-surprising how well their (our) kids are loved and supported.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Over the past few months, my little boy Archie, and myself have spent a bit of time on monday mornings throwing rocks, stones, sticks etc into whatever river takes our fancy. Recently I have introduced "skimmers" to him. He is almost 3. Anyway, he can lob a fat old rock off a bridge into the Tambo or Avon rivers, from a bridge 15m above and ask "skimmer dad?". "Almost" I tell him. Anyway, this morning when we were driving back from changing the flow direction of the Mitchell river, and the little kid throws his empty bottle at me - as he usually does - it hits my arm, the steering wheel, dash board and finally ends up on the floor. "Skimmer dad" he shouts! Funny little kid :-D

Side note - how many freaking Archies do we have on this board? They can form their own supporter club in a few years.

 

[Royal Flush]

Actually there is no undisputed evidence that says that. Of some hundred studies around the world that have researched it, there are four highly-disputed ones that reached that conclusion.

It's irrelevant to the current survey, but still not a myth that can be left unchallenged.

And when you consider that same sex couples can only have children if they plan carefully, and usually get vetted for their suitability (either at medical or legal stages of the process), it's not super-surprising how well their (our) kids are loved and supported.

Maybe evidence/studies both ways , I'll stand firm of the opinion that a child is entitled to be raised by a mother and a father foremost.

Equality in marriage is one thing, but convincing the population that a male/male, female/female, trans/male, trans/female or trans/trans or single woman family environment is equal or better family to raising children is one long bow.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[kangaspurs]

Maybe evidence/studies both ways , I'll stand firm of the opinion that a child is entitled to be raised by a mother and a father foremost.

Equality in marriage is one thing, but convincing the population that a male/male, female/female, trans/male, trans/female or trans/trans or single woman family environment is equal or better family to raising children is one long bow.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I guess you're free to believe that, but the research suggests that children raised by same-sex relationships are no different to those raised by opposite-sex couples.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2015-07-24/same-sex-parenting-fact-or-fiction/6616352

Gender of parents doesn't matter
More than 100 studies have compared the outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual parents.

A US study of 44 randomly selected teenagers raised by same-sex couples showed that they had low levels of depression and anxiety and high self-esteem.

It found that they were no different from the children of opposite-sex parents from a national population sample.

Of the 10 outcomes studied, including indicators like the warmth they felt from their parents and being part of their neighbourhood, the only difference between the groups was that the children of same-sex parents felt more connected at school.

A 2010 United States review by two sociologists from the University of Southern California and New York University looked at 33 studies published since 1990 comparing same-sex and heterosexual parents.

It concluded that "at this point no research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child wellbeing".

The findings were echoed in a 2007 literature review by the Australian Psychological Society, which found that children's wellbeing was affected by the quality of parenting and family relationships, rather than parental number, gender or sexuality.

In 2013, the Australian Institute of Family Studies published a report entitled "Same-sex parented families in Australia".

It also concluded that same-sex parented children did as well emotionally, socially and educationally as the children of heterosexual couples.

Deborah Dempsey, who wrote the report, told Fact Check the research didn't show that children needed a parent of each gender.

But she cautioned that most of the research had been done in lesbian-parented families and not much was known about families parented by two gay male parents.

Potential bias in same-sex studies
Dr Dempsey's report noted that many studies were based on small and homogenous samples of highly educated and middle-class participants, using volunteers rather than randomly selected samples of adults raised by same-sex parents.

A report from Princeton University and the Brookings Institution in the US also noted that many same-sex parenting studies focused on small samples of white, middle-class, well-educated parents.

But the authors said four "state of the art" rigorous studies did show children raised by same-sex parents had the same outcomes to those raised by heterosexual parents, a similar conclusion reached by the two Australian reviews.

One way of overcoming the problem of small numbers of same-sex parents is to pool the data from several studies to get enough statistical power to find any differences.

One of these "meta-analyses" combined data from 19 studies of more than 500 same-sex families.

Of the six broad outcomes they looked at, including intelligence, gender identity, and whether they had psychological problems like depression and anxiety, the only difference was that same-sex parented children had a better relationship with their parents.

Jennifer Power, a research fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University, told Fact Check that repetition of results was important.

"Obviously its important to understand the limitations, I don't argue that, method and rigour are important. But I also think there's a reasonably strong argument that those [volunteer] samples are... fairly reflective of the population as same-sex couples," she said.

Dr Dempsey said that she believed concerns over selection bias were overplayed.

"If there were harms accruing to children that were by virtue of children being raised by same-sex parents, those would show up in samples of highly privileged parents because it would be a harm that was by virtue of the gender and sexuality of the parents," she said.

Australian research shows no difference
More recently, the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS) of 390 same-sex parents showed that of the 17 outcomes studied, the only differences were that the children of same-sex parents scored higher for children's behaviour, health, and how well families got along than those from the general population.

Video expired Fri 27 Jan 2017, 10:21am AEST

Watch John Barron present the facts
( ABC News )
But two-thirds of the children from same-sex parented households experienced at least some stigma related to their parents and this was linked to worse mental health and emotional symptoms, though not enough to see differences in mental and emotional health between the two groups of children.

Lead investigator Simon Crouch, an honorary research fellow at the Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program at the University of Melbourne, told Fact Check the ACHESS study factored in family income and education, to eliminate some of the selection bias that came from using same-sex parents who volunteered for the study.

"I argue that our research is more representative, we tried to capture a broader range [of couples]," he said.

"When we compared it to the average population, in fact some of the same-sex female couples, their income distribution was fairly similar to the general population."

Adverse findings
In 2012, a study from the University of Texas, which did have a large sample size and a randomly selected population, reached some different conclusions on same-sex parenting.

The survey of young adults showed those with parents in a same-sex relationship were more likely to be unemployed, depressed, earn less, and be arrested more often compared with those from stable heterosexual parent families.

Publication of the findings was met with a storm of controversy.

An independent review of the data by sociologists from the University of Connecticut and Indiana University showed that only a quarter of the respondents could plausibly be considered to have been raised by same-sex parents and that there were only four significant differences between the groups, which were unreliable because of the smaller sample size.

A misleading comparison
In their submission to a 2012 parliamentary inquiry into marriage equality, the ACL referenced a review paper, "Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?".

They said the paper, authored by two US academics, supported their contention that "an extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents".

The paper was also referenced by Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz in a 2012 speech to the Young Liberals, in support of his claim that two men or two women could not provide the diversity and vital experience of a home with a mother and father.

The 2002 paper found that children who are born to unmarried mothers, growing up with step-parents, in homes with high-conflict, or with unmarried parents, all do worse than those who grow up with two biological married parents.

But an author's note published with the paper says: "No conclusions can be drawn from the research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents."

Dr Power said those studies showed children raised in stable homes do better than children who are raised in homes where there is instability, conflict or violence.

"There are studies that show kids do better with more resources and more resources come from two parents of either gender," Dr Power said.

Similarly, an Australian review cited by the ACL and South Australian Liberal senator Cory Bernardi as evidence that children do best with married biological parents, also did not look at same-sex parented families.

The report, For kid's sake - repairing the social environment for Australian children and young people, was commissioned by the ACL.

The report's author Patrick Parkinson, a family law expert at the University of Sydney law school, told Fact Check his report focused on heterosexual parenting and contrasted two married biological parents with single parents, blended families and step-parent families.

"[The report] said nothing whatsoever about same-sex parenting," he told Fact Check. "It wasn't about that."

Professor Parkinson said 40 years of studies showed that children benefited from having a mother and a father but said it wasn't clear what could be concluded about same-sex parents.

"We know that kids do ok in same-sex couples but we don't know to what extent some of those have a role model of the other gender."

Fact or fiction?
Some opponents of same-sex marriage say it will be detrimental to children because they do better with a father and a mother.

While studies do show children benefit from a mother and a father, they compare with single parents anddon't show whether it is parental gender, or having two parents, that confers the benefit.

The experts Fact Check spoke to said there was a dearth of definitive credible data demonstrating that children of same-sex parents experienced worse outcomes than children of heterosexual parents.

 

[jimandphilbadge]

Equality in marriage is one thing, but convincing the population that a male/male, female/female, trans/male, trans/female or trans/trans or single woman family environment is equal or better family to raising children is one long bow.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Hi RF
Just respectfully wondering how come?

I am by no means am out to convince anyone, and all I can go by is anecdotal experience as opposed to well researched material, but like many I know some very dismal family situations that follow them mum and dad model (know plenty of good ones too!), but also by anecdotal experience know of some fantastic (and sadly dismal!) family situations that do not fit the mum and dad model. Just wondering why one environment better than the other?

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Maybe evidence/studies both ways , I'll stand firm of the opinion that a child is entitled to be raised by a mother and a father foremost.

Equality in marriage is one thing, but convincing the population that a male/male, female/female, trans/male, trans/female or trans/trans or single woman family environment is equal or better family to raising children is one long bow.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I guess you're free to believe that, but the research suggests that children raised by same-sex relationships are no different to those raised by opposite-sex couples.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2015-07-24/same-sex-parenting-fact-or-fiction/6616352

There aren't accepted studies both ways. People can believe whatever they like, but the evidence is single parents, straight couples, gay couples can all raise children with an equal chance of healthy success. The factors that matter are not about whether parents are heterosexual.

Stability is important, though, which is why a lot of conservatives are fine with voting yes.

My kids have a dad and RCD and three sets of aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents and they celebrate and make cards on mothers day and fathers day and have all the emotional and financial support they could ever want. But that's just anecdote. Like I was raised by a conventional mum and dad and I and my siblings turned out great. I am glad but not surprised to learn from research that my boys are statistically likely to be at least as healthy and happy as anyone else's children.

 

[Only Forwards]

Clearly most Americans were voting Clinton over Trump too.

Just sayin'

Which they did by volume.

 

[Moti]

I will vote no for the following reasons:

- I believe marriage is between a man and a woman (happy to have civil arrangements)
- I am a Christian and there is really only one passage that deals with marriage and thats at the front so I do hold that view.

If Yes wins, then it wins. The world won't crash, the seas won't bubble. I will still talk to straight and gay colleagues and friends alike as I normally do.

What I am annoyed at is the name calling on both sides. I vote no so I am homophobic (even though I have the same relationship with gay people as I do one night standers, if we talk about the sex stuff), a bigot and old fashioned. Some of the crap written to gay couples is disgusting too and I think that we should be careful to make sure that each person is loved as that should be done no matter who they are.

Last thing, this is marriage re-definition, not marriage equality. Simply say this is about re-defining the word and it becomes much more honest. Love is not love or else we would remove restrictions on multiple partners, age and siblings. Even though that is disgusting.

Peace out, whatever you vote, be nice

 

[ferball]

For one, all those wishing for a property collapse in this country.
A property collapse and high inflation and high interest rates will devastate all most the entire population and those banging on about removing negative gearing and foreign investors , they will be effected most with no employment.

That's one

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

And that has what to do with political correctness?

 

[Royal Flush]

Hi RF
Just respectfully wondering how come?

I am by no means am out to convince anyone, and all I can go by is anecdotal experience as opposed to well researched material, but like many I know some very dismal family situations that follow them mum and dad model (know plenty of good ones too!), but also by anecdotal experience know of some fantastic (and sadly dismal!) family situations that do not fit the mum and dad model. Just wondering why one environment better than the other?

Thanks being respectful .
There's a stack load of literature demonstrating the value in a child having both a mother and father.

Before anyone jumps down my throat because they were raised by a single mother or single father I'll say this, I was raised with a traditional mother and father and I turned out pretty crazy. But completely transformed my life during my late 20s.
So the point is I'm not looking to stimulate a debate over mum/dad or lack there off and how awesome you turned out.

A child has a right to a mother and father. Can't always be the case I know..
Just read the book Raising Boys. As one of thousands of examples.

I don't view children as a commodity or an adult right or privilege.
Nobody has a right to having children, nature dictates this more then anyone.

I strongly disagree that a M/M family unit can lay claims of entitlement to raising children conceived via a test tube.


On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Royal Flush]

And that has what to do with political correctness?

It would be politically incorrect to express those views to a first home buyer trying their asses off to get into the properly market don't you think?

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Twinkletoes]

Side note - how many freaking Archies do we have on this board? They can form their own supporter club in a few years.

Many I know of, including our own.

In other non footy news not worthy of a thread:

Shams Charania

✔@ShamsCharania
Free agent center Andrew Bogut has agreed to a one-year deal with the Los Angeles Lakers, agent David Bauman of ISE tells The Vertical.

1:02 PM - Sep 19, 2017

 

[Twinkletoes]

Guy McKenna has taken up a Coaching Development (coaching the coaches) role with Cricket Victoria, after leaving *.

 

[kangaspurs]

I will vote no for the following reasons:

- I believe marriage is between a man and a woman (happy to have civil arrangements)
- I am a Christian and there is really only one passage that deals with marriage and thats at the front so I do hold that view.

If Yes wins, then it wins. The world won't crash, the seas won't bubble. I will still talk to straight and gay colleagues and friends alike as I normally do.

What I am annoyed at is the name calling on both sides. I vote no so I am homophobic (even though I have the same relationship with gay people as I do one night standers, if we talk about the sex stuff), a bigot and old fashioned. Some of the crap written to gay couples is disgusting too and I think that we should be careful to make sure that each person is loved as that should be done no matter who they are.

Last thing, this is marriage re-definition, not marriage equality. Simply say this is about re-defining the word and it becomes much more honest. Love is not love or else we would remove restrictions on multiple partners, age and siblings. Even though that is disgusting.

Peace out, whatever you vote, be nice

Do you also refuse to wear clothing of mixed fabrics, refuse to trim your beard, eat shellfish or pork, deny people entry into the church if they were born out of wedlock or if they're circumcised, refuse to wear gold etc?

If so, fair enough, you're consistent, but that still doesn't give you the right to deny people equality based on your religion in a secular society. If not, why ignore those duties yet actively deny people equality because of a few words elsewhere in the book?

The re-definition thing is contested as well. It was only during the Howard government, 2004, I think, that the law in Australia was changed to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The other definition you point to is the one of the Christian bible, but again, in a secular society why should we be using that definition? Many dictionaries and other sources simply describe marriage as a union between two people, without specifying sex or gender. And why was the Act changed under Howard to institutionalize discrimination? Why weren't we asked through a postal survey at the time?

This might not be popular, but I have no issues with polygamy personally, as long as they're consenting adults. The others are inherently different as children or animals are unable to legally give consent and relationships between an adult and either of those will always be denied for that reason, as they should be. I have no issue with any relationship as long as all parties are consenting adults.

 

[Firestarter]

At the end of the day though, while I'll disagree with the decision and some of the reasons (especially knowing heterosexual couples can be ****ing psychotic and toxic ...) it's within people's rights to say no.

 

[ferball]

It would be politically incorrect to express those views to a first home buyer trying their asses off to get into the properly market don't you think?

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I wouldn't have thought so. Its an economic argument isn't it?

 

[Royal Flush]

I wouldn't have thought so. Its an economic argument isn't it?

I'm against cancelling Australia day to becoming invasion day and having it thrown down my children's throats in school.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ferball]

I will vote no for the following reasons:

- I believe marriage is between a man and a woman (happy to have civil arrangements)
- I am a Christian and there is really only one passage that deals with marriage and thats at the front so I do hold that view.

If Yes wins, then it wins. The world won't crash, the seas won't bubble. I will still talk to straight and gay colleagues and friends alike as I normally do.

What I am annoyed at is the name calling on both sides. I vote no so I am homophobic (even though I have the same relationship with gay people as I do one night standers, if we talk about the sex stuff), a bigot and old fashioned. Some of the crap written to gay couples is disgusting too and I think that we should be careful to make sure that each person is loved as that should be done no matter who they are.

Last thing, this is marriage re-definition, not marriage equality. Simply say this is about re-defining the word and it becomes much more honest. Love is not love or else we would remove restrictions on multiple partners, age and siblings. Even though that is disgusting.

Peace out, whatever you vote, be nice

Marriage was legally defined as between a man and a woman less than 15 years ago. It was then that same sex relationships were specifically denied the right to have recognised marriages. Up until then the definition of marriage was not defined by parliament. That law was passed to specifically stop people arguing that in a changing secular society religious interpretations of marriage may no longer be applicable. There was also a section added that specifically denied the validity of same sex marriages that were "solemnised" - ie took place in some form of ritual with a recognised celebrant overseas.

Up until that time the definition of marriage was accepted from some 18th century non precedent judgement so it was quite open to challenge.

The amendment to the marriage act was passed as a result of pressure from Christian groups some of which deny their members the right to vote (or use the internet) and have an attitude to women thats identical to the percieved attitude of some Muslims and because of that makes them "unAustralian".

So yes its a re-definition but not the sort of re-definition that fundamentally changes anything. Its the re-definition of a dodgy bit of 21st century law that was specifically enacted to deny some people equal legal rights in a secular democracy.

 

[sruss]

Maybe evidence/studies both ways , I'll stand firm of the opinion that a child is entitled to be raised by a mother and a father foremost.

Equality in marriage is one thing, but convincing the population that a male/male, female/female, trans/male, trans/female or trans/trans or single woman family environment is equal or better family to raising children is one long bow.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

maybe you want to show us some of those studies the other way?
edit: personally, i'm of the opinion that s child is entitled first and foremost to be raised in a loving home, can't see how a father/father or a mother/mother hold any barrier to that

 

[Moti]

Do you also refuse to wear clothing of mixed fabrics, refuse to trim your beard, eat shellfish or pork, deny people entry into the church if they were born out of wedlock or if they're circumcised, refuse to wear gold etc?

If so, fair enough, you're consistent, but that still doesn't give you the right to deny people equality based on your religion in a secular society. If not, why ignore those duties yet actively deny people equality because of a few words elsewhere in the book?

The re-definition thing is contested as well. It was only during the Howard government, 2004, I think, that the law in Australia was changed to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The other definition you point to is the one of the Christian bible, but again, in a secular society why should we be using that definition? Many dictionaries and other sources simply describe marriage as a union between two people, without specifying sex or gender. And why was the Act changed under Howard to institutionalize discrimination? Why weren't we asked through a postal survey at the time?

This might not be popular, but I have no issues with polygamy personally, as long as they're consenting adults. The others are inherently different as children or animals are unable to legally give consent and relationships between an adult and either of those will always be denied for that reason, as they should be. I have no issue with any relationship as long as all parties are consenting adults.

First off, none of those things in the first paragraph apply to me so not sure why you raised them.

I do have a right to have an opinion and a vote. It then becomes a matter of how everyone else votes. My faith is part of my psychological framework as much as any other input into the psyche from University to Youtube Cat Videos.

The re-definition is not really contested. The intent of the original legislation was regarding heterosexual marriage and the updates were made to reflect this in words accustomed to the changing landscape so we could have this exact discussion. If the original legislators knew the possibility of the definition being altered to include same sex couples, they would have defined it a man and a woman. The bible does have a definition and I quite comfortably would say that it is the definition of the word marriage for millenia around the world with few exceptions. Again, I have no problem asking for it to be changed, but you need to at least see that there was an original meaning. It is like saying gay has always meant homosexual people. Even though the original definition of lighthearted and carefree is almost extinct.

Regarding extended definition, it wouldn't surprise me if the age is contested in the next decade and lowered to 16. Just as polygamy is only a committed group away from changing the definition again.

 

[ferball]

I'm against cancelling Australia day to becoming invasion day and having it thrown down my children's throats in school.

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm not. Why should the day NSW was settled for the purposes of being a brutal political prison be considered our national day? Invasion day is a much more accurate description. But even without that baggage its got * all to do with the rest of the country. When I was at school in Tassie and Victoria no one cared about it because we had school holidays anyway and it had nothing to do with Australia and everything to do with the UK.

January 26th is Republic Day in India as well. They picked that day because it was the day they became a sovereign nation (their constitution came into effect and their own law became sovereign in their country) instead of being subject to the Poms not because it was the day they became a British colony/subject to them. (They have an independence day as well that celebrates the day the Poms left).

In Victoria it wasn't even adopted until less than 100 years ago. Governments across the country only agreed to "Australia Day" after WW2 and it only became a national public holiday in 1994. There's nothing that special about it.

Its stupid imo to celebrate a day our nation essentially became someone else's prison and shows just how little Australians understand about their own country and how it came to be.

 

[Moti]

Marriage was legally defined as between a man and a woman less than 15 years ago. It was then that same sex relationships were specifically denied the right to have recognised marriages. Up until then the definition of marriage was not defined by parliament. That law was passed to specifically stop people arguing that in a changing secular society religious interpretations of marriage may no longer be applicable. There was also a section added that specifically denied the validity of same sex marriages that were "solemnised" - ie took place in some form of ritual with a recognised celebrant overseas.

Up until that time the definition of marriage was accepted from some 18th century non precedent judgement so it was quite open to challenge.

The amendment to the marriage act was passed as a result of pressure from Christian groups some of which deny their members the right to vote (or use the internet) and have an attitude to women thats identical to the percieved attitude of some Muslims and because of that makes them "unAustralian".

So yes its a re-definition but not the sort of re-definition that fundamentally changes anything. Its the re-definition of a dodgy bit of 21st century law that was specifically enacted to deny some people equal legal rights in a secular democracy.

I responded to this below but I see all they did was clearly portraying the original intent of the legislation so that if a change was to occur it had to be by a decision of parliament or the people. It was just a bit of crappy initial writing.

Anyone who thinks even an average person in the 90's defined marriage as anything other than between a man and woman would be kidding themselves.

What Howard did was frame the argument correctly. Now we have a chance to change it or not.

 

[Royal Flush]

maybe you want to show us some of those studies the other way?
edit: personally, i'm of the opinion that s child is entitled first and foremost to be raised in a loving home, can't see how a father/father or a mother/mother hold any barrier to that

It's everywhere , I'm sure if you were interested you wouldn't have asked

On EVA-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[marklovesbeer]