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

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have you now taken to talking to yourself?

A simple, 'Sorry for getting that wrong and misrepresenting you Jimi' would have sufficed.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

A simple, 'Sorry for getting that wrong and misrepresenting you Jimi' would have sufficed.

Or 'sorry for implying you are a lesser parent than I am Bannasidhe' or ' forgive me for trying to paint you as some selfish lesbian who used a man for his sperm and then forbade him from having involvement in his child's life Bannasidhe' or 'apologies to bluewolf and sonic2k for claiming that they were deprived' would also suffice.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Still pretending then....No bother. YOU claim these studies convinced you, but wont go into it. No problem,

the dishonest Jimi.(may contain irony)

Yes, the studies convinced me as they passed peer review and are endorsed by professional bodies.
What more detail would you like me to go into?

Would me jumping through hoops and answering inane questions (answers which you'll then ignore) get you to start answering questions that have been asked for the last 10+ pages?

What questions do you want me to answer?
Why do you need me to answer them for you to answer the ones put to you?

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll ad that to the list. So now believing a mother and a father are important is

1. Bigotted
2. Laughable
3. Absurd position

I'd swear I was in the twilight zone sometimes:)

And you can also add to your list of misquotes

- no one ever said a mother and father is not important

Gumbi

JimiTime wrote: »

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm actually surprised that posters have continued this debate with Jimi. No amount of evidence will make him change his stance he abides by the absurd position of what he supposedly sees all around him is indisputable proof.

I'll ad that to the list. So now believing a mother and a father are important is

1. Bigotted
2. Laughable
3. Absurd position

I'd swear I was in the twilight zone sometimes:)

Wow. Just wow. No-one is saying that at all.

JimiTime

Gumbi wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. No-one is saying that at all.

Actually, they have been. For pages and pages.

Gumbi

JimiTime wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. No-one is saying that at all.

Actually, they have been. For pages and pages.

Quote me someone saying that the position that a mother and father are important for a child is absurd.

Gumbi

The only point people here are making is that a mother and father is not necessarily important in the upbringing of a child, and that according to all the evidence thus far compiled, see no reason in preventing homosexual couples having the same option as heterosexual couples in raising a child.

Sure, a mother and a father may be important, but so may a homosexual couple.

Sarky

Really JimiTime, you're only going to look more foolish the longer you try to drag this out. You've already admitted you were never interested in an actual debate, and all your points have been refuted in any case. That's quite apart from all the snide insults you've thrown out. If you want people to stop calling you bigoted, yore going to have to stop engaging in bigotry. You're a textbook definition at this stage, as had been demonstrated several times. You aren't becoming a martyr, you're just embarrassing yourself and Christianity as a whole. I don't think anyone is impressed with you, believer or not.

Apology is really your only option. Unless, of course, you really do want to be the new J C.

Sin City

85 pages of debating whether a certain minority in society should not have the same rights as the majority, and we think we are civilized.

Sin City

Sin City wrote: »

85 pages of debating whether a certain minority in society should not have the same rights as the majority, and we think we are civilized.

I wouldn't call the dishonest mental gymnastics of Jimitime, Actor and philologos "debating".

Bannasidhe

King Mob wrote: »

I wouldn't call the dishonest mental gymnastics of Jimitime, Actor and philologos "debating".

Sorry, but I have to say that while I don't agree with Phil it is unfair to lump him in with Actor and Jimi.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sorry, but I have to say that while I don't agree with Phil it is unfair to lump him in with Actor and Jimi.

He argues his points more reasonably than them, but he still resorts to similar dishonest tactics.

I'm still waiting for his response to the detailed posts oldswinsr made and Phil said he would look over.

Bannasidhe

King Mob wrote: »

He argues his points more reasonably than them, but he still resorts to similar dishonest tactics.

I'm still waiting for his response to the detailed posts oldswinsr made and Phil said he would look over.

I too am waiting , but at least Phil had points to make, we may not have agreed with his points or his methodology or even his tactics but lets not put him in the same category with Jimi 'ifyoulookyouwillsee' Time and Actor Mr 'sodomy - it's nothing but sodomy' himself.

JimiTime

I love how you all jump on high horses and go on about me throwing insults etc. when nearly this whole thread has been a love in of backslapping insults from yee. Some people even inventing positions that I don't hold and slagging them off. I'm quite happy being the embarrassment of this company Sarky

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or 'sorry for implying you are a lesser parent than I am Bannasidhe'

All in your head.

or ' forgive me for trying to paint you as some selfish lesbian who used a man for his sperm and then forbade him from having involvement in his child's life

ha ha. All in your head again.

The sad thing about this, is that the last time you spoke this garbage I corrected you. You are so intent on putting me in the box you made that you just don't give a sh1te if you are being truthful or not.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

All in your head.


ha ha. All in your head again.

The sad thing about this, is that the last time you spoke this garbage I corrected you. You are so intent on putting me in the box you made that you just don't give a sh1te if you are being truthful or not.

Dear Jimi
Better men then you have tried and failed to 'correct' me.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

I love how you all jump on high horses and go on about me throwing insults etc. when nearly this whole thread has been a love in of backslapping insults from yee. Some people even inventing positions that I don't hold and slagging them off. I'm quite happy being the embarrassment of this company Sarky

How are we miss representing you?
You're the one doing the misrepresenting. You even spin your own position to pretend it's not bigoted.

We are, and have been arguing against your ill-informed, ignorant and closed minded claim that heterosexual parents are more beneficial than gay parents.

Is this not what you believe?

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dear Jimi
Better men then you have tried and failed to 'correct' me.

So you still have not got the humility to simply say, 'I misrepresented you AGAIN, I'm sorry' no? Tut tut.

doctoremma

Jimi - I don't think Bannasidhe is misrepresenting you.

Your initial premise: a man and a woman form the 'ideal' parental unit.
The logical implication: any parental unit not composed of a man and a woman is therefore 'not ideal'.

You can't have the first premise without the second. It is a logical and necessary progression. This second premise is part of your opinion, even if you don't formally state it.

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

Jimi - I don't think Bannasidhe is misrepresenting you.

You're initial premise: a man and a woman form the 'ideal' parental unit.
The logical implication: any parental unit not composed of a man and a woman is therefore 'not ideal'.
You can't have the first premise without the second. It is a logical and necessary progression. This second premise is part of your opinion, even if you don't formally state it.

Thats just dealing with the first misrepresentation, and you'd be wrong with your assessment. I have NOT even implied that she is a lesser parent. How the hell would I know what kind of parent she is? For example, my sister is a IMO, a very good parent, but the fact that her husband was killed two weeks after their son was born meant that he grew up in a less than ideal household. My sister was still a great parent.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats just dealing with the first misrepresentation, and you'd be wrong with your assessment. I have NOT even implied that she is a lesser parent. How the hell would I know what kind of parent she is? For example, my sister is a IMO, a very good parent, but the fact that her husband was killed two weeks after their son was born meant that he grew up in a less than ideal household. My sister was still a great parent.

You have repeatedly implied (in formal logic terms) that two homosexual parents are 'not the ideal'. Are you denying that?

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

You have repeatedly implied (in formal logic terms) that a pair of homosexual parents are 'not the ideal'. Are you denying that?

I have to ask, why have you just ignored my answer, which deals concisely with your accusation and moved to this question? Do you understand what I said above? it seems to me, like you are looking to make a stick with which to beat me, than having any interest in actually realising what I have said.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats just dealing with the first misrepresentation, and you'd be wrong with your assessment. I have NOT even implied that she is a lesser parent. How the hell would I know what kind of parent she is? For example, my sister is a IMO, a very good parent, but the fact that her husband was killed two weeks after their son was born meant that he grew up in a less than ideal household. My sister was still a great parent.

But you are claiming that she is part of a less than ideal household because of her sexual orientation.
This is bigotry. Especially when you aren't able to defend your claim.

And you know this, hence why you are trying to spin it.

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats just dealing with the first misrepresentation, and you'd be wrong with your assessment. I have NOT even implied that she is a lesser parent. How the hell would I know what kind of parent she is? For example, my sister is a IMO, a very good parent, but the fact that her husband was killed two weeks after their son was born meant that he grew up in a less than ideal household. My sister was still a great parent.

You believe your nephew's situation isn't on a par with being raised by both parents, but do you believe he is less than he could be because he was only raised by one parent? Do you think he would have been a better person if he was raised by both parents? If so, in what areas do you feel he is lacking?

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

I have to ask, why have you just ignored my answer, which deals concisely with your accusation and moved to this question? Do you understand what I said above? it seems to me, like you are looking to make a stick with which to beat me, than having any interest in actually realising what I have said.

Jimi, I didn't understand the point you were making. I'm no longer sure which aspect of parenting you are referring to when you tag them as 'ideal' or 'not ideal'. You appear to be saying that, despite a 'less than ideal' situation, your sister has managed to be a perfectly good parent, bringing up your nephew well? In which case, why do you think other parents, whose situation you view as 'less than ideal', should not make good parents.

I want to ask you a question but I appreciate the sensitive nature of it - I'm not trying to score points or be tasteless, please give me the benefit of that doubt....

Given your sister's situation, and your nephew growing up without a father, do you believe him to be happy and well-rounded? Do you think that a man has been inconsequential to this outcome? I'm not suggesting that the loss of a parent is inconsequential in any way, I'm asking if you think the loss of the male parent has had negative consequences for your nephew.

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

Jimi, I didn't understand the point you were making. I'm no longer sure which aspect of parenting you are referring to when you tag them as 'ideal' or 'not ideal'. You appear to be saying that, despite a 'less than ideal' situation, your sister has managed to be a perfectly good parent, bringing up your nephew well? In which case, why do you think other parents, whose situation you view as 'less than ideal', should not make good parents.

I'm a bit confused as to what you don't understand This is not to do with bad parenting. No-one is saying that a single parent etc is not a good parent. This is not about the perspective of the parent, but rather the perspective of the child. My sister is a good mother, but my nephew sadly lost his father. The fact that his father died, does not mean that his mother becomes a bad parent, it means that he only has his mother and not his mother and father, which would have been the best circumstance for him.

I want to ask you a question but I appreciate the sensitive nature of it - I'm not trying to score points or be tasteless, please give me the benefit of that doubt....

Given your sister's situation, and your nephew growing up without a father, do you believe him to be happy and well-rounded?

I'm sorry, but I cant put him on trial here. I hope you can appreciate that.

Do you think that a man has been inconsequential to this outcome? I'm not suggesting that the loss of a parent is inconsequential in any way, I'm asking if you think the loss of the male parent has had negative consequences for your nephew.

Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.

Actor

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dear Jimi
Better men then you have tried and failed to 'correct' me.

Hi Bannasidhe. When are you going to retract your accusation of me lying RE: abortifacients and medical card holders?

I spoke to a pharmacist at the weekend who assured me that both the pill and morning-after pill are available to medical card holders for free.

Zombrex

Jimi's point is quite simple, children raised in these less than ideal households will miss out on the experiences that would be afforded to them if they were in more ideal house holds.

This is a pretty obvious point and I'm struggling as to why people are having such a problem with it. To my mind you are all asking the wrong question. The question should be how much does this matter.

I was not raised in a rich house hold. In the grand scheme of things this was not ideal, I would have had better experiences had my parents had more money. I would have traveled more, possibly got a better education, had more opportunities. In the development of me to a reasonably fully functioning adult the question is though does this matter?

It is obvious that a child raised in a household with two gay men will not have the experience of having a mother. They also may not have the experience of being rich, living in an Irish speaking part of the country, being by the sea, having access to a non-Catholic school etc etc etc. It is debatable if there is such a thing as the ideal family.

The question that should matter is what damage will this have on the child's development and is this so minor as to be acceptable. I don't think it is ideal that a child be raised in a religious family. Does that mean I think it is so damaging to the child that I would object to adoption for religious people? No, not at all. I don't think it is ideal that a child be raised in Finglas (for those outside Dublin, a north dublin area of high crime and drug use). Do I object to adoptions in Finglas? No, not at all. These things are not ideal but that is a long way off saying that they are so damaging to a child, that harm is so certain because of this specific variable, that they should prevent adoption.

That is the question you should be asking Jimi, not whether he thinks your sister or mother raising a single child is a bad parent or not, as Jimi himself points out that is utterly beside the point.

Odin you all make me so angry!!! :eek::eek::p

Actor

King Mob wrote: »

But you are claiming that she is part of a less than ideal household because of her sexual orientation.
This is bigotry. Especially when you aren't able to defend your claim.

It's not bigotry (despite what you want to believe). There's a natural sexual complementarity in parenting. Are you saying that such complementarity doesn't exist?