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

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

All of this post is dodging waffle.
I have severals time qualified my question with "even if these differences existed..."

We all know there are differences between genders, but we don't agree that they are exclusive nor do we agree if such differences were exclusive they are required or beneficial.

My question has nothing to do with whether or not these unique differences exist, I think we all realise that you are unable to back up your claim and are too dishonest to retract it.

I am asking you to show that these differences cannot exist in same sex couples, and to show that they are actually required.

So again:
Please actually point out which differences you are referring to and show and support how 1) they cannot be present in the other gender and 2) show how they are essential or more beneficial to child rearing.

If you can't do this, then do the honest thing and admit it.

You are free to your assumptions about dishonesty, however off the mark they are. As I keep saying, look for yourself going forward. Let the question be raised in yourself, and don't just let some strangers study dictate reality. If your observations affirm the that mothers and fathers don't have common traits then so be it. If you end up witnessing the common traits, then start asking if they are important enough to make a difference. At this point maybe look for the studies you so crave into the parenting differences and their impact on a child. I have nothing to offer to convince you if you insist that the differences don't exist (As I have said many times).

JimiTime

marienbad wrote: »

When all is said and done this is just mindless bigotry with absolutely nothing to back it up. Closed mind if ever there was one , but at last in the final lines the real venom inadvertently begins to show.

Oh no, you played the 'mindless bigot' card. What a completely unexpected surprise. Lazy political weasel words, so that you don't have to think. It would be funny, if it wasn't so irritatingly predictable..

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

1) Do fathers and mothers in general parent differently? Try looking at the real life going on about you going forward, and I'll be flabbergasted if you don't see it.

2) If yes is your answer to the above, then the natural question is then, do their parenting styles matter to a child?

These questions have been answered several times Jimi, stop pretending otherwise.

We have given you plenty of examples of how there are no attributes exclusive to one gender. And we have all seen this by looking at real life.

So now it's up to you to specific which differences you are talking about, show how they are exclusive to one gender, then show how those differences are required to have a benefit.

You're making that claim, you need to either back it up or withdraw it.

JimiTime wrote: »

I would also repeat, that all you study junkies, look for studies not sullied by political motives. Look for ones relating to the differences in fathers and mothers etc. I can't believe that you would trust a study on homosexual parenting, (And does it account for every form that takes? Two men, no blood relation to child. Two men, one being their father. two lesbains etc. Then we have transgender etc. I mean its not like same sex parents means a specific thing) when probably not even 0.01% of children in the world are in a same sex home.

And I have repeatedly pointed out to you that even if such studies exist and they showed what you would like them to show, they cannot be used to conclude anything about same sex parents because that's not what they are studying.

We have already provide a link to an extensive list of studies that do compare a wide variety of same sex couples and compares them to equivalent straight couples.
They do not support you.

If you think that these studies are tainted or influenced, you'll have to back that up too. At least to the level of how oldswinsr tore apart the two studies your side likes to trot out.
And again, if not, withdraw the claim.

JimiTime wrote: »

This seems like more of a political desire than anything else. There seems to be more time given over to the LGBT politics for equality, than for any real concern for the possible issues for children. i mean even if there is a suspicion of risk, or any doubts about if there is anything a child will be missing out on without a mother or father, then all bets should be off.

There are no suspicions of risk or doubts about it.
The overwhelming consensus from all those who study the matter, all the organisations who deal with those, and many of the governments who already place children with gay parents are all against you and your ilk.

You are the one trying to bring politics and religion into the facts of the matter.
hence why you have to be so dishonest and evasive.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

You are free to your assumptions about dishonesty, however off the mark they are. As I keep saying, look for yourself going forward. Let the question be raised in yourself, and don't just let some strangers study dictate reality. If your observations affirm the that mothers and fathers don't have common traits then so be it. If you end up witnessing the common traits, then start asking if they are important enough to make a difference. At this point maybe look for the studies you so crave into the parenting differences and their impact on a child. I have nothing to offer to convince you if you insist that the differences don't exist (As I have said many times).

Wow another dishonest strawman.
I never said that there weren't differences between the sexes.
I'm disputing your claim that there are exclusive differences between them that are vital to parenting.
I have not observed this, I have observed the opposite.

So again, please point to the differences you are referring to, show that they are exclusive, then show that they are required for a benefit.

if you can't answer this post you've got no point.
I'm asking you to convince me, but the reason you can't is because your claims are crap and unsupportable.
And if they are unsupportable you are being dishonest by asserting them.

So put up or shut up time, jimi.

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

These questions have been answered several times Jimi, stop pretending otherwise.

We have given you plenty of examples of how there are no attributes exclusive to one gender. And we have all seen this by looking at real life.

So now it's up to you to specific which differences you are talking about, show how they are exclusive to one gender, then show how those differences are required to have a benefit.

You're making that claim, you need to either back it up or withdraw it.

And I have repeatedly pointed out to you that even if such studies exist and they showed what you would like them to show, they cannot be used to conclude anything about same sex parents because that's not what they are studying.

We have already provide a link to an extensive list of studies that do compare a wide variety of same sex couples and compares them to equivalent straight couples.
They do not support you.

If you think that these studies are tainted or influenced, you'll have to back that up too. At least to the level of how oldswinsr tore apart the two studies your side likes to trot out.
And again, if not, withdraw the claim.


There are no suspicions of risk or doubts about it.
The overwhelming consensus from all those who study the matter, all the organisations who deal with those, and many of the governments who already place children with gay parents are all against you and your ilk.

You are the one trying to bring politics and religion into the facts of the matter.
hence why you have to be so dishonest and evasive.

Well you are entitled to your conclusions about my honesty, I certainly have no desire to defend myself to you.

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

Wow another dishonest strawman.
I never said that there weren't differences between the sexes.
I'm disputing your claim that there are exclusive differences between them that are vital to parenting.
I have not observed this, I have observed the opposite.

So again, please point to the differences you are referring to, show that they are exclusive, then show that they are required for a benefit.

if you can't answer this post you've got no point.
I'm asking you to convince me, but the reason you can't is because your claims are crap and unsupportable.
And if they are unsupportable you are being dishonest by asserting them.

So put up or shut up time, jimi.

I wouldn't hold your breath there KM, so I guess I got no point. Other than, keep looking going forward. It might affirm your belief. Or you never know, you might see something else.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Well you are entitled to your conclusions about my honesty, I certainly have no desire to defend myself to you.

JimiTime wrote: »

I wouldn't hold your breath there KM, so I guess I got no point. Other than, keep looking going forward. It might affirm your belief. Or you never know, you might see something else.

Yea, when you run away from simple questions, my conclusions about your honesty are well justified.

You keep claiming that we should be able to see these exclusive differences you are taking about. Yet despite being so obvious, you cannot actually point them out, explain how they are exclusive or show how they are vital to parenting.

And even though you can't to this basic thing that's so central to you point, you still claim it as if you have done so.
This is dishonest and closed minded.
You should be asking yourself why you need to be dishonest and closed minded to hold onto your belief.

And we should not have to explain why a belief you are just declaring but can't actually explain, demonstrate, support or even defend against basic questioning should not be used to decide what rights people have.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Oh no, you played the 'mindless bigot' card. What a completely unexpected surprise. Lazy political weasel words, so that you don't have to think. It would be funny, if it wasn't so irritatingly predictable..

This coming from a guy who is so utterly unoriginal that he is reduced to a repetitive one liner to sustain his bigotry would be a laugh allright if it was'nt so predictable....

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, when you run away from simple questions, my conclusions about your honesty are well justified.

Well what you decide is up to you.

You keep claiming that we should be able to see these exclusive differences you are taking about. Yet despite being so obvious, you cannot actually point them out, explain how they are exclusive or show how they are vital to parenting.

Just have the patience not to look for an answer from a stranger on boards.ie, and look for yourself. I'm telling you that your own view may be affirmed, but simply be aware of the question going forward, and have a look.

This is dishonest and closed minded.
You should be asking yourself why you need to be dishonest and closed minded to hold onto your belief.

Well I'll tell you what, I'll ask myself if I'm being dishonest, if you, going forward keep the question raised in your head. that ok?

JimiTime

marienbad wrote: »

This coming from a guy who is so utterly unoriginal that he is reduced to a repetitive one liner to sustain his bigotry would be a laugh allright if it was'nt so predictable....

haha. Touché. I realise my predictability though.
Seriously though, I'm sure you are smarter than all this 'Bigot' nonsense.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Well what you decide is up to you.

Well if you can come up with a definition of honest that can include "runs away from points you can't answer", I'm all ears.
Until then, your dishonesty is clear to all.

JimiTime wrote: »

Just have the patience not to look for an answer from a stranger on boards.ie, and look for yourself. I'm telling you that your own view may be affirmed, but simply be aware of the question going forward, and have a look.

But Jimi I've already looked. I have seen plenty of parents and I do not see what you are claiming is there.

I'm asking you directly, without your silly little game to point out the differences you think are lacking in gay parents, then back it up with something other than your own word. (Which is clearly not worth the paper it's written on.)

But you can't do this because there are no such differences.
You realise this, hence why you are dodging the question.

If this is not the case, prove otherwise and answer the question.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well I'll tell you what, I'll ask myself if I'm being dishonest, if you, going forward keep the question raised in your head. that ok?

And the only way you can do that, is to not actually use your point which you are unable to defend.
But you're going to continue to use it despite knowing you can't defend it because you care more about your beliefs being right than about them being consistent, honest and true.

The fact that you are wasting more time with these condescending last words instead of addressing a simple request just further shows your dishonesty.
If you can be bothered to tell me to " go forward and look around me" and other such nonsense, you should be bothered to give your claims the barest level of defence.

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

1) Do fathers and mothers in general parent differently? Try looking at the real life going on about you going forward, and I'll be flabbergasted if you don't see it.

2) If yes is your answer to the above, then the natural question is then, do their parenting styles matter to a child?

No to 1 and no to 2 is my answer and seems to be the answer of everyone except you do far. You however appear to be entirely unable to list any of the differences you claim to have observed which is suspect.

28064212

georgieporgy wrote: »

Children who grow up in same sex households think its better to have male and female parents;

You seem to have tacked on the plural without any basis whatsoever. I think what you meant was "A child who grew up in a same sex household thinks it's better to have male and female parents". The Regnerus study mentioned has been conclusively debunked.

G.K.

JimiTime wrote: »

i mean even if there is a suspicion of risk, or any doubts about if there is anything a child will be missing out on without a mother or father, then all bets should be off.

You've given no justification, no justification whatsoever except your own opinion and a link to someone citing the debunked Regenerus study. As such your argument would hold no legal weight provided your opposition was capable of debunking said study.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well I'll tell you what, I'll ask myself if I'm being dishonest, if you, going forward keep the question raised in your head. that ok?

No, it isn't ok.

I don't care about going forward. In this regard, I care about now. I want equality sooner rather than later, so I want to know the counter-argument. In the past, I've thought about this, as have others who post in this thread. I don't need to bear it in mind any more, because I know, based on the threefold of my experiences, the experiences of others and the studies that there are no differences.

I don't at the moment have the opportunity to observe parenting and I don't have the time even if I did, as I have to do other things, like be in a film and apply to uni. The debate still draws me in, but I can only debate if you debate as well.

You blatently, blatently, don't have an argument of any substance whatsoever, which is why you keep fobbing us off with 'look for yourselves' or 'if I say it has no value'. I refer you to my previous post on that matter (Which you kindly ignored):

G.K. wrote: »

And you telling us the differences won't cheapen them or cause them to lose 'value'. I'll consider anything that has merit, and that merit comes not from who proposes the idea, but what the proposition is.

So, if you do have an argument, say it. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

haha. Touché. I realise my predictability though.
Seriously though, I'm sure you are smarter than all this 'Bigot' nonsense.

Yeah I agree all this bigotry is nonsense, but if you work on it and try and observe with an open mind you might still lose it

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah I agree all this bigotry is nonsense, but if you work on it and try and observe with an open mind you might still lose it

Wasting our time with Jimi. Jimi has decided.

Anyone that does not conform to Jimi's worldview is an 'exception'.

Apparently, those who comprise the exceptions are not deserving of equality.

After all, we live in a monoculture, monoreligion, monoethnic, monolithic society so these 'exceptions' should just jolly well conform and stop demanding equal treatment by the State. It's not like we have citizens who are not ethnically Irish (and/or not white) or not Roman Catholic (it being a 'Roman Catholic country' after all) or not heterosexual...

No deviations from the norm please - this is Ireland.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wasting our time with Jimi. Jimi has decided.

Anyone that does not conform to Jimi's worldview is an 'exception'.

Apparently, those who comprise the exceptions are not deserving of equality.

After all, we live in a monoculture, monoreligion, monoethnic, monolithic society so these 'exceptions' should just jolly well conform and stop demanding equal treatment by the State. It's not like we have citizens who are not ethnically Irish (and/or not white) or not Roman Catholic (it being a 'Roman Catholic country' after all) or not heterosexual...

No deviations from the norm please - this is Ireland.

I grew up being called 'pagan' in school due to my not being catholic, so I'm afraid you're off the mark about me being the norm. Is this what its come to? Your frustration leading to all these digs? (Still quite passive aggressive I might add)

And again, all this equality bullsh1t is just political buzzwordism. If I wanted to get involved in that nonsense I could say, Hey, are you not pro-child then, because I am. Yadda yadda. This topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality. Its about what is best for children. Children should not be pawns in political games or social experiments. So bleat on about equality, or bigotry all you want. The fact is, my concern lies solely with that of the children in all of this. I am concerned about THEM being embroiled in the politics of the LGBT pressure groups etc. No longer is the issue, 'well what consenting adults do in the privacy....' So I make no apologies for my concern, whatever mud gets slung.

JimiTime

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah I agree all this bigotry talk is nonsense

Apology accepted.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

And again, all this equality bullsh1t is just political buzzwordism. If I wanted to get involved in that nonsense I could say, Hey, are you not pro-child then, because I am. Yadda yadda. This topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality. Its about what is best for children. Children should not be pawns in political games or social experiments. So bleat on about equality, or bigotry all you want. The fact is, my concern lies solely with that of the children in all of this. I am concerned about THEM being embroiled in the politics of the LGBT pressure groups etc. No longer is the issue, 'well what consenting adults do in the privacy....' So I make no apologies for my concern, whatever mud gets slung.

What's your solution for same-sex parents who already have children through single-parent adoption? It is quite clearly in the best interests of the child that they be adopted by a couple, not a single-parent

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

And again, all this equality bullsh1t is just political buzzwordism. If I wanted to get involved in that nonsense I could say, Hey, are you not pro-child then, because I am. Yadda yadda. This topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality. Its about what is best for children. Children should not be pawns in political games or social experiments. So bleat on about equality, or bigotry all you want. The fact is, my concern lies solely with that of the children in all of this. I am concerned about THEM being embroiled in the politics of the LGBT pressure groups etc. No longer is the issue, 'well what consenting adults do in the privacy....' So I make no apologies for my concern, whatever mud gets slung.

No it doesn't, and no one is buying your fake concern.
If were actually concerned about children's welfare would be willing to listen to the science and the testimony for the children of gay parents. You have stated categorically you are unwilling to listen.
Further if you were that concerned about the children you would ensure that you are in fact basing you opinion on solid reasoning. You have demonstrated that not only is this not the case, you are being wilfully dishonest and underhanded to maintain a position you cannot actually support.

How can you want the best for children when you can't demonstrate what you claim is best is best and apparently don't care you can't?
Seems like the only one being influenced by politics is you.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

I grew up being called 'pagan' in school due to my not being catholic, so I'm afraid you're off the mark about me being the norm. Is this what its come to? Your frustration leading to all these digs? (Still quite passive aggressive I might add)

And again, all this equality bullsh1t is just political buzzwordism. If I wanted to get involved in that nonsense I could say, Hey, are you not pro-child then, because I am. Yadda yadda. This topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality. Its about what is best for children. Children should not be pawns in political games or social experiments. So bleat on about equality, or bigotry all you want. The fact is, my concern lies solely with that of the children in all of this. I am concerned about THEM being embroiled in the politics of the LGBT pressure groups etc. No longer is the issue, 'well what consenting adults do in the privacy....' So I make no apologies for my concern, whatever mud gets slung.

Jimi - if your aim is to frustrate me I'm afraid you are in for a disappointment. I have simply dismissed you.

I really have no more interest in 'debating' with you, no more than I have an interest in 'debating' with Fred Phelps or Pope Benedict. I considered your views to be a close minded as theirs. You don't debate - you pontificate.

Unlike other posters here such as Phil and PDN who are willing to engage and debate you have proven your statements lack substance and that you are locked into a smug, self-satisfied loop of 'look and learn you will see I am right and all you who disagree with me are wrong.'

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

And again, all this equality bullsh1t is just political buzzwordism. If I wanted to get involved in that nonsense I could say, Hey, are you not pro-child then, because I am. Yadda yadda. This topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality. Its about what is best for children. Children should not be pawns in political games or social experiments. So bleat on about equality, or bigotry all you want. The fact is, my concern lies solely with that of the children in all of this. I am concerned about THEM being embroiled in the politics of the LGBT pressure groups etc. No longer is the issue, 'well what consenting adults do in the privacy....' So I make no apologies for my concern, whatever mud gets slung.

Equality is very much at the heart of the matter here, and that includes equality for children with same sex parents. It's been pointed out several times in the thread that those children are at a legal disadvantage when compared to children whose parents are able to enter into a legally recognised marriage. I think Bannisidhe's post alone goes to show the lengths someone has to go to to bring some semblance of legal stability to a child's situation. And not everyone will have her resources, or know how.

So if your concern is really for children, you should be the first line demanding the rights of those children be protected by extending civil marriage rights to same sex couples.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jimi - if your aim is to frustrate me I'm afraid you are in for a disappointment. I have simply dismissed you.

Certainly not my aim. But all your passive aggressive statements seem to indicate that this is what is happening.

I really have no more interest in 'debating' with you, no more than I have an interest in 'debating' with Fred Phelps or Pope Benedict. I considered your views to be a close minded as theirs. You don't debate - you pontificate.

Thats your prerogative, and your opinions are what they are. the thing is though, you keep coming back with little digs.

Unlike other posters here such as Phil and PDN who are willing to engage and debate you have proven your statements lack substance and that you are locked into a smug, self-satisfied loop of 'look and learn you will see I am right and all you who disagree with me are wrong. '

Actually, you'll see that I've said if people after they use their observational powers, look at the studies about the roles of fathers and mothers in childrens lives, the differences in how they parent etc and still conclude what they do, then so be it. Of course, I think they'll be wrong, if I didn't, I'd think like them surely. I just don't want people to form their opinions based on googling, and the words of political pressure groups on this. All the accusations have been towards my closed mindedness, which to a degree, are correct. There would be very little that could be presented here in the virtual world that could convince me that what I witness in the real world is actually wrong. So again, if all the good folk here are open minded, then start observing real life, and see if you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, then hey, we disagree. This view allegedly makes me Fred Phelps, who allegedly is pretty much the same as The Pope. Who knew!?:)

JimiTime

NuMarvel wrote: »

Equality is very much at the heart of the matter here, and that includes equality for children with same sex parents. It's been pointed out several times in the thread that those children are at a legal disadvantage when compared to children whose parents are able to enter into a legally recognised marriage. I think Bannisidhe's post alone goes to show the lengths someone has to go to to bring some semblance of legal stability to a child's situation. And not everyone will have her resources, or know how.

I do actually believe that there should be some kind of legal framework. What this would be, I don't know, nor is it relevant to what I'm arguing.

So if your concern is really for children, you should be the first line demanding the rights of those children be protected by extending civil marriage rights to same sex couples.

Again, I have been the one asking my fellow Christians, what the reasoning behind their objections to the term 'marriage' being used is.

My issue is in terms of adoption. Giving children to two gay men rather than to a mother/father dynamic etc. The biological children due to arrangements made with donors etc or from a former heterosexual relationship etc is a different debate.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

So again, if all the good folk here are open minded, then start observing real life, and see if you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, then hey, we disagree. This view allegedly makes me Fred Phelps, who allegedly is pretty much the same as The Pope. Who knew!?:)

And we've all told you that we don't see what you claim is there.
But instead of doing the closed minded thing you did and end the discussion there we asked you to point out what differences you were referring to and to detail how these were essential to child rearing.
You cannot do that.

You don't care that you can't do it and are going to dishonestly pretend that you can and ignore all of the points made against you.
For example despite being told several times that the studies looking into the supposed differences cannot be used to conclude what you want to conclude, you are still using that canard and ignoring that point.
This is just one example of your dishonesty.

Your closed-mindedness, dishonesty and your clear bigotry is what make you like Fred Phelps and his ilk.

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

And we've all told you that we don't see what you claim is there.
But instead of doing the closed minded think you did and end the discussion there we asked you to point out what differences you were referring to and to detail how these were essential to child rearing.
You cannot do that.

As I've kept saying, I see no value in giving you my observations. You only trust yourselves to a degree, so would definitely not trust me. At this point in time, you require to see it yourself, and also have people show you using a process you have faith in, i.e. studies etc. I know already that what I would say would not suffice. What I have is simply not good enough to convince anyone that has already formed an opinion that fathers and mothers are inconsequential. It will simply give you a bigger shovel with which you can dig yourselves further into your opinions.

For example despite being told several times that the studies looking into the supposed differences cannot be used to conclude what you want to conclude, you are still using that canard and ignoring that point.
This is just one example of your dishonesty.

Do you by any chance think I'm being dishonest? Stop beating round the bush and just say it will ye!:)

Just so you know, the above point about the studies, just shows how unwise it would be to spoon-feed you. My points would be absolutely worthless to you. Any answers must be arrived at from yourself.

Your closed-mindedness, dishonesty and your clear bigotry is what make you like Fred Phelps and his ilk.

Again, you are entitled to your opinions, its just a shame they're so lazy minded.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

As I've kept saying, I see no value in giving you my observations. You only trust yourselves to a degree, so would definitely not trust me. At this point in time, you require to see it yourself, and also have people show you using a process you have faith in, i.e. studies etc. I know already that what I would say would not suffice. What I have is simply not good enough to convince anyone that has already formed an opinion that fathers and mothers are inconsequential. It will simply give you a bigger shovel with which you can dig yourselves further into your opinions.

A lame attempt to fob off the fact you can't back up your claims.

What you see is worthless and unconvincing because you cannot exclude factors that might have caused you to reach an incorrect conclusion.
I've asked you this before, but again, you ignored that point too.

Explain to us how you were able to exclude possibilities of unconscious bias, skewed samples and other such factors did not play a role in your conclusion.
Or if you can't explain that, be honest for a change and admit it.

If you are as concerned about finding out what is best for children, you must have taken measures to insure that you are not falling into the same logical traps all people are in danger of falling into.

But then, we both know you aren't concerned and didn't take any such measures because you you actually care if your opinion matches reality

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you by any chance think I'm being dishonest? Stop beating round the bush and just say it will ye!:)

I call it like I see it. You are dishonest, you know you are being dishonest, but you don't care.

JimiTime wrote: »

Just so you know, the above point about the studies, just shows how unwise it would be to spoon-feed you. My points would be absolutely worthless to you. Any answers must be arrived at from yourself.

These sentances make no sense and do not address the point you are still ignoring.
You are claiming that some studies can conclude stuff they didn't study.
This is lying.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, you are entitled to your opinions, its just a shame they're so lazy minded.

Says the man still unwilling to give his bigoted opinion the barest of defenses, and reached his conclusion because he just saw it. :rolleyes:

The difference is I can back up my opinion and show how dishonest, bigoted and close minded you are.
That's what honest adults do when they claim something.

yawha

Would you not agree that most people's personal observations of others are extremely limited and extremely flawed due to bias?

I know mine are, anyway. It's something I always make sure to keep in check and as such, I am very careful about the conclusions I make due to personal experience alone.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

As I've kept saying, I see no value in giving you my observations. You only trust yourselves to a degree, so would definitely not trust me. At this point in time, you require to see it yourself, and also have people show you using a process you have faith in, i.e. studies etc. I know already that what I would say would not suffice. What I have is simply not good enough to convince anyone that has already formed an opinion that fathers and mothers are inconsequential. It will simply give you a bigger shovel with which you can dig yourselves further into your opinions.




Do you by any chance think I'm being dishonest? Stop beating round the bush and just say it will ye!:)

Just so you know, the above point about the studies, just shows how unwise it would be to spoon-feed you. My points would be absolutely worthless to you. Any answers must be arrived at from yourself.



Again, you are entitled to your opinions, its just a shame they're so lazy minded.

How are those opinions so lazy minded ? your opinion is simply this - based on my observations gay men should not be allowed to adopt children'' .

You won't expand on your observations , what you see, where you see it, with whom you see it etc- for all we know you could be basing your views on the monkey cage in Dublin Zoo.

And you call others lazy minded !

By the way those gay couples that do have children through whatever mechanism- do you think the HSE should get involved ? That would be the consistant with your view would it not ?

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

If you are as concerned about finding out what is best for children, you must have taken measures to insure that you are not falling into the same logical traps all people are in danger of falling into.

Not at all, my position has the complete safety net of history. We KNOW mother/father dynamics work from years and years and years and years and years of experience and billions of examples. So even if I was wrong, the consequence will have been that children will have grown up with a mam and dad. Your side of the fence is still a social experiment with children, the results of which will not be truly known until we have a MUCH MUCH bigger pool of incidences to witness.

But then, we both know you aren't concerned and didn't take any such measures because you you actually care if your opinion matches reality

It matches reality fine, and thankfully, even if it was wrong, it would have no impact whatsoever on children, unlike your own position.

I call it like I see it. You are dishonest, you know you are being dishonest, but you don't care.

I know you think that I'm dishonest (Actually I don't even believe that, I think you are just an angry kinda guy), and in that I certainly don't care.

Says the man still unwilling to give his bigoted opinion the barest of defenses, and reached his conclusion because he just saw it. :rolleyes:

If you can show me the bigotry you accuse me of, I'll be able to correct your poor observation.

The difference is I can back up my opinion and show how dishonest, bigoted and close minded you are.
That's what honest adults do when they claim something.

It seems to me, that your attitude is more akin to a 13 year old who isn't getting his way than to anything adult.