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

Actor

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think you're confusing secularism with atheism. Religious freedom doesn't mean the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on those who don't hold them. I'm glad to live in a secular country where people are free to practice any faith they choose or no faith at all if they so wish.

That's all very fine (in theory) most of the time. Moral issues can and do arise and legislators (transient individuals elected on the basis of popularity) must appeal to a moral authority from time to time. Abortion is a case in point. Some say the individual is best placed to decide the fate of an unborn child - others say that an unborn child has a right to life regardless of the wishes of the parent(s). Both can't be right. There is only one Truth. The tyranny of relativism rots away at civilised society which has taken so long to reach peaceful equilibrium.

NuMarvel

pathtohome wrote: »

Brian Cowen is perfectly skinny. Two can play at that game.

We can provide evidence that contradicts your statement. Can you provide evidence that homosexuality isn't natural?

Bannasidhe

Actor wrote: »

You can read the bible all you want. If you're not qualified, your opinion is moot. Would you take tax advice on a complex issue from some punter on the internet? If you did, you'd look like a fool when audit time came around and wouldn't get any sympathy from Revenue.

"A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people" BMC Psychiatry 2008, 8:70

Amphetamines are also strongly linked to mental disorders. I'd avoid like the plague. Same goes for bum "sex".

Funny you should mention audits - haven't failed one yet and I do the books all by myself.

I am also very capable of understanding Scripture thank you and I would like to know why it is ok for you to get angry and show hostility which Paul clearly says is a sin but for other people to do things Paul also considers a sin is not ok?

I shall leave others who are experienced in such studies to discuss the one you have (finally) named - not my area of expertise.

Sin City

Actor wrote: »

You can read the bible all you want. If you're not qualified, your opinion is moot. Would you take tax advice on a complex issue from some punter on the internet? If you did, you'd look like a fool when audit time came around and wouldn't get any sympathy from Revenue.

"A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people" BMC Psychiatry 2008, 8:70

Amphetamines are also strongly linked to mental disorders. I'd avoid like the plague. Same goes for bum "sex".

You need to sit an exame now to be a christian?

Again link please for bum sex mental disorder

You know there was a school of though that the deeply religious themselves suffer from a mental disorder

Talking to invisible friends and all that

28064212

Actor wrote: »

"A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people" BMC Psychiatry 2008, 8:70

Correlation does not equal causation. If it did, we'd have to shut down the RCC, as it "causes" paedophilia

ShooterSF

ShooterSF wrote: »

So you think society should conform to your religious beliefs even those that don't share them?

Actor wrote: »

The Truth and morals are universal.

They clearly aren't but is that a yes? Why would you make it this difficult to ascertain your position on this? Unless you see the inherent problem with claiming that your religion knows best for everybody and you wish to impose it's views unto us.

Oh and a big LOL at the "Catholic majority". I'd be happy to put a referendum to that majority on gay marriage any day.

MadsL

Your study does not say what you think it says. More hostility and discrimination from people like yourself than 'sodomy' is the reasoning given behind greater psychological issues.

it is likely that the social hostility, stigma and discrimination that most LGB people experience is at least part of the reason for the higher rates of psychological morbidity observed.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/1327285007213634_manuscript.pdf

Also I asked if you were basing your belief that "sexual gratification is disgusting and sinful on any particular scripture? Or is it perhaps a particular teaching. Where are you getting this from?"

I was referring to married, heterosexual couples. You seem to be of the belief that anal and oral sex between Christian married couples is sinful. Where are you getting that from? I see no scriptural basis for it.

Zombrex

Actor wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to suggest that this is the case?

How about the study you yourself linked to (but apparently didn't bother to read)

Nevertheless, it is likely that the social hostility, stigma and discrimination that most LGB people experience is at least part of the reason for the higher rates of psychological morbidity observed.

A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people

MadsL

^^
OT Sorry

I never get the mentality of boardsies when it comes to the Thanks button. i post and get one thank. Zombrex posts almost exactly the same post as me and me and gets 3!!
I guess I'm a thanks whore.

Zombrex

MadsL wrote: »

^^
OT Sorry

I never get the mentality of boardsies when it comes to the Thanks button. i post and get one thank. Zombrex posts almost exactly the same post as me and me and gets 3!!
I guess I'm a thanks whore.

What can I say :cool:

Sin City

MadsL wrote: »

^^
OT Sorry

I never get the mentality of boardsies when it comes to the Thanks button. i post and get one thank. Zombrex posts almost exactly the same post as me and me and gets 3!!
I guess I'm a thanks whore.

Its a freaking popularity contest

Its not what you know its who you know

MadsL

Blows kiss at Corkfeen

Enough! On with the show...where did Jimi and Actor get to?

JimiTime

MadsL wrote: »

Blows kiss at Corkfeen

Enough! On with the show...where did Jimi and Actor get to?

I gave up on yee, because yee were all too preoccupied with gay people, when I was trying to talk about mammies and daddies. though I suppose it is the gay megathread so I'll let it slide.;)

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

I gave up on yee, because yee were all too preoccupied with gay people, when I was trying to talk about mammies and daddies. though I suppose it is the gay megathread so I'll let it slide.;)

Let's compromise and talk about Gay mammies and daddies.

Sin City

Just throwing it out there

Corkfeen

MadsL wrote: »

Blows kiss at Corkfeen

Enough! On with the show...where did Jimi and Actor get to?

I read it during the early hours and must have forgotten all about it .

JimiTime wrote: »

I gave up on yee, because yee were all too preoccupied with gay people, when I was trying to talk about mammies and daddies. though I suppose it is the gay megathread so I'll let it slide.;)

But you ignore the massive amount of evidence that is put before you. What is the point of debating with a person that thinks their worldview is perfect based solely on their own limited experiences? Plenty of posters have spent time and effort illustrating a strong argument(including plenty of studies and first hand experiences) in favour of letting gay people raise children but it seems to be a pointless exercise.

Actor

Corkfeen wrote: »

Plenty of posters have spent time and effort illustrating a strong argument(including plenty of studies and first hand experiences) in favour of letting gay people raise children but it seems to be a pointless exercise.

None of these studies are compelling. They all work off small, unrepresentative sample sizes.

Actor

Actor wrote: »

None of these studies are compelling. They all work off small, unrepresentative sample sizes.

And what exactly are you basing this opinion on? How precisely do you know that it their sample sizes are too small?
What would be a adequate sample size?

Do you have any studies that do have adequate sample sizes that back up your bigoted position?

28064212

Actor wrote: »

None of these studies are compelling. They all work off small, unrepresentative sample sizes.

Could you give a detailed breakdown of how you came to that conclusion? Specifically, what sample sizes in what studies did you feel were "too small"? What size is a sufficient sample? Be sure to include references to the papers "you've read" now, as well as a good overview of your understanding of the mechanics of population sampling.

And while you're at it, where are the studies that say the opposite? Even if they are "small, unrepresentative" sample sizes

Actor

King Mob wrote: »

And what exactly are you basing this opinion on? How precisely do you know that it their sample sizes are too small?
What would be a adequate sample size?

Do you have any studies that do have adequate sample sizes that back up your bigoted position?

Now, now. There's no need to start name-calling. I'm saying that a child deserves a mother and a father. You can have all the studies in the world (paid for by the pro-homosexual lobby), but they cannot resolve the fact that nature created man and woman. Two men cannot reproduce nor can two women. Going against the grain of nature is not healthy and this is borne out by numerous studies which show that homosexual persons are far more likely to have serious mental health issues. Drugs also give people mental health issues and, sensibly, most people stay away; despite the short-term gratification that drugs can give one.

Actor

Actor wrote: »

Now, now. There's no need to start name-calling. I'm saying that a child deserves a mother and a father. You can have all the studies in the world (paid for by the pro-homosexual lobby), but they cannot resolve the fact that nature created man and woman. Two men cannot reproduce nor can two women. Going against the grain of nature is not healthy and this is borne out by numerous studies which show that homosexual persons are far more likely to have serious mental health issues. Drugs also give people mental health issues and, sensibly, most people stay away; despite the short-term gratification that drugs can give one.

I'm not calling you names, I'm just stating a fact about your position.

And instead of answering a set of simple direct questions, you've gone on a silly rant.
And one that's very dishonest as some of the mental health issues you are referring too are in fact caused by bigotry such as yours.

So again:
How precisely do you know that it their sample sizes are too small?
What would be a adequate sample size?

Do you have any studies that do have adequate sample sizes that back up your bigoted position? (Ones that directly compare homosexual and heterosexual couples only please as they are the only relevant studies here.)

And further, please back up your assertion that these studies have been "bought by the homosexual lobby" and show how they have been manipulated, or withdraw your accusation.

Actor

28064212 wrote: »

Could you give a detailed breakdown of how you came to that conclusion? Specifically, what sample sizes in what studies did you feel were "too small"? What size is a sufficient sample? Be sure to include references to the papers "you've read" now, as well as a good overview of your understanding of the mechanics of population sampling.

And while you're at it, where are the studies that say the opposite? Even if they are "small, unrepresentative" sample sizes

RE post 1375:

"...researchers cannot possible [sic.] evaluate the degree to which particular samples do or do not represent the population."

also,

RE post 1336

Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator, 28, 544-552

"In-depth interviews were conducted with a snowball sample of 40 gay fathers and 14 of their children. Uses a cross-national sample: Interviews were conducted in large and small cities in both Canada and the United States. Excluded from the study were men who no longer saw their children"

Mmm.

Also:

"These results were based on a small sample, and they must be interpreted with caution"

Also:

"Because of the small sample size and the absence of statistical tests, this finding should be seen as suggestive rather than conclusive."

When I see some definitive and significant statistical testing that's (preferably quantitative rather than wishy-washy qualitative research findings), I'll take things to the next level. Until then, the onus is on you.

NuMarvel

Actor wrote: »

Now, now. There's no need to start name-calling. I'm saying that a child deserves a mother and a father. You can have all the studies in the world (paid for by the pro-homosexual lobby), but they cannot resolve the fact that nature created man and woman. Two men cannot reproduce nor can two women. Going against the grain of nature is not healthy and this is borne out by numerous studies which show that homosexual persons are far more likely to have serious mental health issues. Drugs also give people mental health issues and, sensibly, most people stay away; despite the short-term gratification that drugs can give one.

Ah come on. You've shown you can't even read a newspaper article without misinterpreting it to suit your agenda. Why should anyone believe you're capable of understanding scientific studies, never mind being an authority on what nature intended?

If gay men and women are more likely to have serious mental health issues, did you do any research into why? Or were you happy to find something that, at a glance, confirms your limited worldview without questioning it more. I suspect it was the latter. If you looked at all, you would have seen the lead researcher in that study believes that the discrimination experienced by gay men and women is a major factor.

Besides ALL of which, you still haven't proven that sodomy and other "unnatural" sexual activities leads to mental health problems, which was your original assertion. But that's just another in a long list of statements you are unwilling or unable to back up.

Actor

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not calling you names, I'm just stating a fact about your position.

If I called you a "gay", would that be calling you a name or stating a fact? I'll kindly ask you to withdraw your assertion. Otherwise I can only assume that you are not open to rational debate and your judgement is clouded.

Actor

NuMarvel wrote: »

If gay men and women are more likely to have serious mental health issues,
did you do any research into why?

Numbers don't lie. You tell me why. Let me guess, it's everyone else's fault except the individual?

Actor

A cursory glance at any pro-homosexual journal shows that the vast majority of authors engage in homosexual behaviour in one form or another (this ranges from "monogomous marriage simulation" to "cruising").

Actor

Actor wrote: »

If I called you a "gay", would that be calling you a name or stating a fact?

Neither as it's not a bad thing, nor is it a fact.

Actor wrote: »

I'll kindly ask you to withdraw your assertion. Otherwise I can only assume that you are not open to rational debate and your judgement is clouded.

I won't withdraw it as it's evidently true from your biased, illinformed and wilfully ignorant position.
Like this little bigoted lie you've just told:

Actor wrote: »

A cursory glance at any pro-homosexual journal shows that the vast majority of authors engage in homosexual behaviour in one form or another (this ranges from "monogomous marriage simulation" to "cruising").

Back this up or withdraw it.

NuMarvel

Actor wrote: »

You tell me?

I have to tell you if you did or didn't do any research into why gay people might be more likely to have mental health issues?

Well, based on what I've seen, I'd go with no. However, only you can answer that for certain.

So yes or no, did you research why gay people might be more likely to have mental health issues?

Actor wrote: »

Numbers don't lie.

But the people who use the numbers for their own agenda often do...

Actor

King Mob wrote: »

Neither as it's not a bad thing, nor is it a fact.

It's ok... I understand you're not gay. It's fine. Go talk to someone in a wooly jumper about it.

King Mob wrote: »

I won't withdraw it as it's evidently true from your biased, illinformed and wilfully ignorant position.
Like this little bigoted lie you've just told:

You're getting very close to my ignore list now.

King Mob wrote: »

Back this up or withdraw it.

I work at a university. I can tell you that in my experience, the type of people who submit these papers to these so-called "scientific" journals either take it up the bum or drink from the furry cup. I won't get into what they do after hours (I even saw one of them in Palmerstown Park on my way home from work one night).

Actor

NuMarvel wrote: »

But the people who use the numbers for their own agenda often do...

And so you've just highlighted the problem with agenda-based, qualitative research. Getting a "p-value" and from that jumping to all kinds of conclusions about gay people and their behaviours makes a mockery of real science.