The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

people like this i imagine
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79982117&postcount=133

Exactly, so probably better to take that question to the Atheism & Agnosticism Forum.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

You claimed that adopted children suffered incredibly elevated levels of abuse/violence compared to biological children.

Actually I didn't. The 'incredibly elevated' bit is your imagination. Are you a real doctor? I would be very nervous if I was to be treated by someone who didn't actually listen to what I was saying.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Actually I didn't. The 'incredibly elevated' bit is your imagination. Are you a real doctor? I would be very nervous if I was to be treated by someone who didn't actually listen to what I was saying.

"Incredibly elevated" is my summary of what you said. The Cinderella Effect - which you claimed applies to adoptive children - cites an increased level of abuse and murder to something like 40 x and 140 x respectively. This, for me, falls under the term "incredibly elevated".

PDN wrote: »

A number of studies indicate that adopted children are statistically more llikely to be abused, to be murdered, to go to jail, or to suffer mental health problems than are children raised by their biological parents. The same applies to step-children (something I do have personal experience of). I understand that this is sometimes called The Cinderella Effect.

Also, I am a "real" doctor. It's plausible that my definition doesn't match yours though, and we know how much of a stickler you are for that.

Bloodwing

PDN wrote: »

Exactly, so probably better to take that question to the Atheism & Agnosticism Forum.

Although you may not like it PDN anybody who believes a gay person should be treated differently in society just because they are gay falls into the anti gay brigade. I know your probably going tell me you have no problem with people being gay but if that was the case you'd have no problem in sharing a simple word like marriage with them.

PDN

Neilos wrote: »

Although you may not like it PDN anybody who believes a gay person should be treated differently in society just because they are gay falls into the anti gay brigade. I know your probably going tell me you have no problem with people being gay but if that was the case you'd have no problem in sharing a simple word like marriage with them.

Ah well, if you're going to dishonestly use pejorative language like that then there's no basis for discussion. But don't be surprised if you fail to win hearts and minds with that attitude.

I don't think 'marriage' should apply to brothers and sisters either - so I guess I'm part of the ant-sibling brigade too. :rolleyes:

JimiTime

I feel dirty posting this, but below are links to studies published in June of this year.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

I hate this study wars carry on, and in terms of social 'science' I reckon we are always just one study away from the last one being debunked. Anyway, for those into this kind of thing rather than having confidence in their own sense, there they are. No doubt the ones who want to accept it will accept it with aplomb, and those who don't want to accept it will probably ignore it and find a different study or some-such. Anyway, they're there for you if you want to read them. Now I must go wash.:)

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

"Incredibly elevated" is my summary of what you said. The Cinderella Effect - which you claimed applies to adoptive children - cites an increased level of abuse and murder to something like 40 x and 140 x respectively. This, for me, falls under the term "incredibly elevated".

Also, I am a "real" doctor. It's plausible that my definition doesn't match yours though, and we know how much of a stickler you are for that.

I did not take something that I said was 'incredibly elevated', and then claim that it applied to adopted children.

I said that a number of studies indicated that adopted children were more likely to suffer certain adverse life outcomes, and that I believed it was known as The Cinderella Effect.

I'm still hoping that 'bait and switch' was just a sloppy bit of thinking on your part. Even doctors do that - which is why my wife went into hospital with a bloodclot in her lung and got treated for gallstones instead.

Bloodwing

PDN wrote: »

Ah well, if you're going to dishonestly use pejorative language like that then there's no basis for discussion. But don't be surprised if you fail to win hearts and minds with that attitude.

I don't think 'marriage' should apply to brothers and sisters either - so I guess I'm part of the ant-sibling brigade too. :rolleyes:

When brothers and sisters start looking for the right to marry each other then I will certainly be joining the anti incest brigade. There are strong social and medical reasons to be against it.

It's hilarious how I've been called dishonest here a so many time by the same people when everything I've said has been true. Let's just clarify here, do you believe that a gay couple should be treated differently to a straight couple? From what I've seen so far you believe they should be.

PDN

Neilos wrote: »

When brothers and sisters start looking for the right to marry each other then I will certainly be joining the anti incest brigade. There are strong social and medical reasons to be against it.

If that ever happens I'll make sure to debate with you since you're part of the anti- brother and sister brigade.

It's hilarious how I've been called dishonest here a so many time by the same people when everything I've said has been true. Let's just clarify here, do you believe that a gay couple should be treated differently to a straight couple? From what I've seen so far you believe they should be.

I believe they should be treated equally in all things that apply to them. Equal tax & inheritance rights etc.

I don't believe that the term 'marriage' is a correct description of their relationship. Equally, if you started campaigning for me to be legally designated as my own grandfather I would be opposed to that.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

I did not take something that I said was 'incredibly elevated', and then claim that it applied to adopted children.

I'm struggling to see how the above goes with this:

You said:
A number of studies indicate that adopted children are statistically more likely to be abused, to be murdered, to go to jail, or to suffer mental health problems than are children raised by their biological parents.

Your two first assertions, adopted children are statistically more likely to be abused or murdered than are children raised by their biological parents are incorrect (or, at least, I have found no evidence for it).

I think you should edit your comment to account for this; as it stands, anyone reading that would wrongfully think that adopted children were more likely to be abused or murdered than children raised by biological parents, exactly as you have said.

PDN wrote: »

I said that a number of studies indicated that adopted children were more likely to suffer certain adverse life outcomes

No you didn't.

You said:
A number of studies indicate that adopted children are statistically more likely to be abused, to be murdered, to go to jail, or to suffer mental health problems than are children raised by their biological parents.

PDN wrote: »

I'm still hoping that 'bait and switch' was just a sloppy bit of thinking on your part. Even doctors do that - which is why my wife went into hospital with a bloodclot in her lung and got treated for gallstones instead.

I don't understand you. Other than you appear to be accusing me of some kind of fraud.

Bloodwing

PDN wrote: »

If that ever happens I'll make sure to debate with you since you're part of the anti- brother and sister brigade.

I really don't see where your going with this incest is against the law for good reasons, homosexuality is not.

PDN wrote: »

I believe they should be treated equally in all things that apply to them. Equal tax & inheritance rights etc.

I don't believe that the term 'marriage' is a correct description of their relationship. Equally, if you started campaigning for me to be legally designated as my own grandfather I would be opposed to that.

You either believe that people should be treated equally or you don't. You can't give them equality with terms and conditions attached. There are a number of definitions of marriage, many of which apply to same sex couples. Just because it doesn't sit with the christian definition of marriage doesn't mean it should have any bearing on legislation.

PDN

Neilos wrote: »

I really don't see where your going with this incest is against the law for good reasons, homosexuality is not.

What good reasons?

You are much more intolerant than I am. I simply disagree with the word 'marriage' being redefined. You appear to approve of outlawing two consenting adults from even sleeping together.

Give me a good reason why a brother and sister shouldn't be allowed to marry. You are free not to marry your sibling if you choose - but why should you dictate to others how they should live. :pac:

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't understand you. Other than you appear to be accusing me of some kind of fraud.

You have falsely accused me of making claims about incredibly elevated statistics.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

You have falsely accused me of making claims about incredibly elevated statistics.

I've already stated that the 'elevated' part was my interpretation. I will edit the post appropriately. Do you still reject that your statements are false?

Bloodwing

PDN wrote: »

What good reasons?

You are much more intolerant than I am. I simply disagree with the word 'marriage' being redefined. You appear to approve of outlawing two consenting adults from even sleeping together.

Give me a good reason why a brother and sister shouldn't be allowed to marry. You are free not to marry your sibling if you choose - but why should you dictate to others how they should live. :pac:

I'm surprised you need a link to the good reasons but sure here you go. Numerous studies on the long term negative effects of incest. As you have been so quick to point out I'm not dictating anything to anyone, I'm expressing my opinion on incest. This by the way is bordering on the "slippery slope argument" put forward by McIlwaine in 1967.

PDN

Neilos wrote: »

I'm surprised you need a link to the good reasons but sure here you go. Numerous studies on the long term negative effects of incest. As you have been so quick to point out I'm not dictating anything to anyone, I'm expressing my opinion on incest. This by the way is bordering on the "slippery slope argument" put forward by McIlwaine in 1967.

I don't need a link (particularly one that doesn't work when I click on it). I want you to tell me why you are concerned about what two consensual adults get up to in their bedroom. Try putting it in your own words, that way we know you've actually thought about it rather than just clicking on google.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

What good reasons?

You are much more intolerant than I am. I simply disagree with the word 'marriage' being redefined. You appear to approve of outlawing two consenting adults from even sleeping together.

Give me a good reason why a brother and sister shouldn't be allowed to marry. You are free not to marry your sibling if you choose - but why should you dictate to others how they should live. :pac:

Actually, I agree completely. Obviously, the child issue may need dealing with, as would the possibility of abuse of authority. But apart from that, I have no issue with incestuous relationships.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I've already stated that the 'elevated' part was my interpretation. I will edit the post appropriately.

There's no need to edit anything. A simple acknowledgement suffices.

Do you still reject that your statements are false?

My statement was that "A number of studies indicate that adopted children are statistically more llikely to be abused, to be murdered, to go to jail, or to suffer mental health problems than are children raised by their biological parents."
Are you disputing that a number of studies indicate this?

I also said, "The same applies to step-children (something I do have personal experience of). I understand that this is sometimes called The Cinderella Effect."
Are you disputing that this also applies to step-children and is called the Cinderella Effect?

I also said, "It's simple evolutionary biology. We have progressed more than the dominant lion that kills any cubs in the pride that weren't fathered by himself, but we still tend to favour our own natural offspring above others."
Are you disputing that humans tend to favour their own offspring over others? Or did I make a mistake about lions? Is that the false statement you are referring to?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Actually, I agree completely. Obviously, the child issue may need dealing with, as would the possibility of abuse of authority. But apart from that, I have no issue with incestuous relationships.

You are a tolerant person. Are you advocating that they should be called recognised as marriage?

Bloodwing

PDN wrote: »

I don't need a link (particularly one that doesn't work when I click on it). I want you to tell me why you are concerned about what two consensual adults get up to in their bedroom. Try putting it in your own words, that way we know you've actually thought about it rather than just clicking on google.

The link is working fine for me. The main reason I'd object to incest is the fact that children born of direct siblings are at a significantly higher risk of congenital birth defects. I really don't get why your comparing two entirely different situations. This is about as off topic as you can get.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

My statement was that "A number of studies indicate that adopted children are statistically more llikely to be abused, to be murdered, to go to jail, or to suffer mental health problems than are children raised by their biological parents."
Are you disputing that a number of studies indicate this?

For the first two assertions - adopted children experience more abuse and murder - yes. Everything I've read shows that adopted children suffer very low levels of abuse and violence at the hands of their parents when compared to children and stepchildren living with at least one biological parent.

PDN wrote: »

I also said, "The same applies to step-children (something I do have personal experience of). I understand that this is sometimes called The Cinderella Effect."
Are you disputing that this also applies to step-children and is called the Cinderella Effect?

The 'same' doesn't apply to stepchildren as your initial assertion is flawed. You also seek to normalise the magnitude of effects between adopted and stepchildren. The data show that stepchildren suffer extraordinary levels of abuse and violence at the hands of their parents.

PDN wrote: »

I also said, "It's simple evolutionary biology. We have progressed more than the dominant lion that kills any cubs in the pride that weren't fathered by himself, but we still tend to favour our own natural offspring above others."
Are you disputing that humans tend to favour their own offspring over others? Or did I make a mistake about lions? Is that the false statement you are referring to?

Data from studies of adopted children show them to be treated better than biological children in the same family.

Forget the lions. I don't have an issue there!

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

Actually, I agree completely. Obviously, the child issue may need dealing with, as would the possibility of abuse of authority. But apart from that, I have no issue with incestuous relationships.

Didn't want to get into this as I think it's not relevant to this thread but I agree with PDN and doctoremma. I thought long and hard about this topic and realised that I was agin it as I felt it was 'icky'.

Given that I have often stated I think what two consenting adults get up to is none of my business it would be hypocrisy if I added 'except you two adults - what you do is icky and makes me uncomfortable so it should be banned'.

Yes - there are medical issues - but is that enough to justify illegality? Turns out diabetes runs in both sides of my family. I inherited this 'life-sentence' and unknowingly passed it on to my son and grandkids. Should diabetics be banned from having children as there is a distinct risk they could 'pass it on'?

PDN

Neilos wrote: »

The link is working fine for me. The main reason I'd object to incest is the fact that children born of direct siblings are at a significantly higher risk of congenital birth defects. I really don't get why your comparing two entirely different situations. This is about as off topic as you can get.

Then there's a much stronger case for banning anyone with Huntingdon's Disease from ever engaging in sexual intercourse. Yes?

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Didn't want to get into this as I think it's not relevant to this thread but I agree with PDN and doctoremma. I thought long and hard about this topic and realised that I was agin it as I felt it was 'icky'.

Given that I have often stated I think what two consenting adults get up to is none of my business it would be hypocrisy if I added 'except you two adults - what you do is icky and makes me uncomfortable so it should be banned'.

Yes - there are medical issues - but is that enough to justify illegality? Turns out diabetes runs in both sides of my family. I inherited this 'life-sentence' and unknowingly passed it on to my son and grandkids. Should diabetics be banned from having children as there is a distinct risk they could 'pass it on'?

And therefore, in order to be consistent, you would support legislation to alllow incestuous couples to marry?

Oh, and let's not forget adoption. Presumably it's OK for an incestuous couple to adopt kids?

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Then there's a much stronger case for banning anyone with Huntingdon's Disease from ever engaging in sexual intercourse. Yes?

Well, to be technical (and I don't support this view), it could be argued that people carrying Huntingdon's should be prevented from having children, rather than having sex.

Of course, with the strides being made in embryo section, forcible sterilisation will be unnecessary.

Sonics2k

PDN wrote: »

Oh, and let's not forget adoption. Presumably it's OK for an incestuous couple to adopt kids?

Considering one of the main, true and accurate concerns of incest is the somewhat severe genetic conditions that can follow as a result of incest, well quite frankly adoption would be a good option.

I'll admit I find the idea of incest... odd, to say the least. But again, consenting adults and all that.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

And therefore, in order to be consistent, you would support legislation to alllow incestuous couples to marry?

Oh, and let's not forget adoption. Presumably it's OK for an incestuous couple to adopt kids?

As in my mind marriage is primarily to establish legal kin-ship and inheritance rights I would need to look at the legal situation re: siblings Vs the legal situation re: spouses before I could honestly answer that question. But in principle if there are legal advantages available to an incestuous couple if they were to enter into a committed legally binding contract of life partnership that is not available to them when classified as siblings or blood-kin I would have no issue with it.

It which case re:adoption - married is married. Same rights to apply to all who sign the contract.

Bloodwing

The problem with incest is not what two consenting adults get up to. The problem is the high mortality rate/ extreme birth defect rate among their children. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding. Another study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities. That is the problem with it. I have no issue with two sisters or two brother getting together and being called married and they can adopt if they want because they won't be producing off-spring with significant defects and a huge mortality rate.

Bannasidhe

Neilos wrote: »

The problem with incest is not what two consenting adults get up to. The problem is the high mortality rate/ extreme birth defect rate among their children. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding. Another study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities. That is the problem with it. I have no issue with two sisters or two brother getting together and being called married and they can adopt if they want because they won't be producing off-spring with significant defects and a huge mortality rate.

I understand what you are saying, but the same applies to people with a close degree of Consanguinity. Have a look at the Spanish Hapsburgs to see the effect of continual marriage between cousins.

Should we ban European royals from marrying other European royals as lets face it - most of them are directly descended from Queen Victoria and carry the gene for Haemophilia.

Bloodwing

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, but the same applies to people with a close degree of Consanguinity. Have a look at the Spanish Hapsburgs to see the effect of continual marriage between cousins.

Should we ban European royals from marrying other European royals as lets face it - most of them are directly descended from Queen Victoria and carry the gene for Haemophilia.

How this has become a discussion on incest over homosexuality is beyond me and i really think there's better places for it. What my opinion boils down to is this, I know very little about the history and background of incest and therefore i don't feel I'm in a great place to comment on it but what i do know is it carries with it a high degree of risk in terms of the offspring from such a relationship. Homosexuality does not have this risk attached to it and to compare both in the same argument is unfair and misleading.

Someone with knowledge in the history and background of incest could probably put up much better arguments for or against it than i could.

EDIT: Had to Google "Consanguinity" to find out what it means!! It all depends on how closely related you are to the relative. If you know there is a close blood relationship then i reckon you shouldn't be hoping into the bed with them. If it's a relationship you can only work out be sitting down and drawing up a family tree then there's more of an argument for it seen as it poses less of a risk to the offspring.