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

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-08-2012 11:47AM

philologos wrote: »

I'm sorry because I didn't show you all the gentleness and respect that you deserve in this discussion.

I do not think you owe anyone here any apology. It is your position you are representing here, not ours. If you represent it poorly, dishonestly, or by running away from and ignoring the points you can not answer then you have let no one down at all but your self and your own position. If you are as passionate about your position as you claim to be then you should endeavour to be a more honest representative of it.

As such the only person I think you owe an apology to is yourself.

Now when you want to get around to actually answering the question you have been avoiding for page after page now here it is again:

What things would you list as being actually required for a successful and healthy upbringing of a child.... things like security, understanding, love, food, education, protection and the like.... and what on that list can you show is somehow performed better by your imagined "ideal" parental configuration over the many others that are out there and you are religiously motivated to be biased against?

I maintain that there is nothing on that list that is performed better by any one parental configuration over another.... which is why I think your "one man one woman is the ideal" mantra is baseless.... and which is why you need to run so far, so fast from that question every time it is asked of you.

marienbad · 05-08-2012 02:52PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm leaving it with that post above for at least a few days now.

so thats a no then to providing an answer to oldernwiser ?

philologos · 05-08-2012 03:02PM

marienbad wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

I'm leaving it with that post above for at least a few days now.

so thats a no then to providing an answer to oldernwiser ?

Read back and see that I said that if the testimony from the Prop 8 trial is true, I'll be retracting my use of the study critical of the APA's 2005 paper and the New Family Structures study done at the University of Texas at Austin.

So I've responded saying I'm going to look into it further.

For now I'm taking a break from this thread.

PDN · 05-08-2012 03:20PM

marienbad wrote: »

so thats a no then to providing an answer to oldernwiser ?

Moderating Note
Marien, given your track record, you are the last poster who should be badgering anyone to answer a question quickly.

Posters are free to answer questions in their own time, a policy you have benefited from as much from, if not more than, anyone.

05-08-2012 06:42PM

philologos wrote: »

Thanks for your patience and understanding with me,
philologos

Your apology is completely hollow when you make no attempt to answer the questions and posts you've left hanging.
And I believe you have no intention of ever answering them.

You however shall continue you use the studies you now know are totally irrelevant to the topic and don't conclude what you say they do. And you will continue to ignore the fact that not one study that would allow you to conclude your preferred outcome supports you.
You will continue to use your one study to reject every other one provided to you, regardless of whether that criticism covers it and completely ignoring the fact that oldswinr tore it apart so hard. You say you'll look into it, but we all know you won't. And even if by some freak of nature you do actually look into it, you'll never actually retract it.
You will continue to say that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, not only having no valid reason for this, but also being unable to establish what that discrimination should be.

If you are really sorry for you behaviour you should either make honest attempts to answers these and other points for a change, or just admit that you can't answer them.
But again I don't think you actually are sorry, you're just looking for an excuse to continue to avoid these points, wait for people to forget about them, then return to repeat the claims you're unable to defend.

You shouldn't be sorry for you lack of grace or gentleness, you should be sorry for your less than honest behaviour.

Bannasidhe · 05-08-2012 06:52PM

King Mob wrote: »

Your apology is completely hollow when you make no attempt to answer the questions and posts you've left hanging.
And I believe you have no intention of ever answering them.

You however shall continue you use the studies you now know are totally irrelevant to the topic and don't conclude what you say they do. And you will continue to ignore the fact that not one study that would allow you to conclude your preferred outcome supports you.
You will continue to use your one study to reject every other one provided to you, regardless of whether that criticism covers it and completely ignoring the fact that oldswinr tore it apart so hard. You say you'll look into it, but we all know you won't. And even if by some freak of nature you do actually look into it, you'll never actually retract it.
You will continue to say that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, not only having no valid reason for this, but also being unable to establish what that discrimination should be.

If you are really sorry for you behaviour you should either make honest attempts to answers these and other points for a change, or just admit that you can't answer them.
But again I don't think you actually are sorry, you're just looking for an excuse to continue to avoid these points, wait for people to forget about them, then return to repeat the claims you're unable to defend.

You shouldn't be sorry for you lack of grace or gentleness, you should be sorry for your less than honest behaviour.

I am prepared to give phil the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he has gone off to have a think...maybe even a re-think...!

Plus folks, keep in mind that he does go to Church today and whatever our personal opinions on that activity, we must appreciate he is busy doing something that is of great importance to him.

ShooterSF · 06-08-2012 01:53PM

(phil) Same sex relationships can't benefit a child in the same way. Children can be raised in that context and be fine, but marriage is better precisely because of the difference both mum and dad make on average on a child's life.

Do people with this mindset support the legislating for polyamourous marriages as surely a child with multiple mothers and fathers would get even more attention from both genders and access to an even greater skill set?

Bannasidhe · 06-08-2012 02:00PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Do people with this mindset support the legislating for polyamourous marriages as surely a child with multiple mothers and fathers would get even more attention from both genders and access to an even greater skill set?

Oh get away with your logic.

:pac:

06-08-2012 06:20PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Do people with this mindset support the legislating for polyamourous marriages as surely a child with multiple mothers and fathers would get even more attention from both genders and access to an even greater skill set?

That seems like it's a perfectly logical extension of the conclusions of the research.
I look forward to seeing Phil now argue that reaching such logical conclusions beyond what the research actually says isn't fair.
And doing so without a hint of irony.

JimiTime · 08-08-2012 11:30AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Do people with this mindset support the legislating for polyamourous marriages as surely a child with multiple mothers and fathers would get even more attention from both genders and access to an even greater skill set?

The argument has always been about the nuclear family, not simply having men and women about. The father and mother dynamic in the nuclear family is an important factor. That people saw this as a logical question, reveals that there is a real lack of thought.

marienbad · 08-08-2012 11:32AM

JimiTime wrote: »

The argument has always been about the nuclear family, not simply having men and women about. The father and mother dynamic in the nuclear family is an important factor.

If that were true it can no longer be applied though, society has choosen to move on. Why discriminate against one group as opposed to any other.

doctoremma · 08-08-2012 11:54AM

JimiTime wrote: »

The argument has always been about the nuclear family, not simply having men and women about. The father and mother dynamic in the nuclear family is an important factor. That people saw this as a logical question, reveals that there is a real lack of thought.

What is special about the dynamic between mother and father that is necessarily absent from the dynamic between father and father or mother and mother?

Bannasidhe · 08-08-2012 12:01PM

It's like a never ending loop of

1. 'Traditional'...
2. Bible says...
3. The children...
4 Semantic quibbling
5. Icky..
6. Some really out there stuff...

I do wish that people would give the other posts in a thread even a cursory glance before posting so we didn't have to keep repeating ourselves.

JimiTime · 08-08-2012 12:17PM

doctoremma wrote: »

What is special about the dynamic between mother and father that is necessarily absent from the dynamic between father and father or mother and mother?

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

Turtwig · 08-08-2012 12:19PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

Deploy: Bluewolf, Sonic.

08-08-2012 12:22PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

Well, to start off with, I'd say bluewolf and Sonics2k would have trouble supporting the fact that they've apparently missed out on vital experiences in their lives because their parents aren't of opposite gender.

Secondly, drawing on my own experience, I can't think of any important experiences that my father/mother provided that an equally good parent of the opposite gender couldn't have. Perhaps you can draw on your own experience to tell us what your mother/father provided that a man/woman are incapable of doing?

Corkfeen · 08-08-2012 12:25PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

Erm... Since many of us including yourself and myself have not experienced having two mothers or fathers, you must look at the studies about people who have had same sex parents to reach a conclusion. Drawing simply on your own experiences is useless and flawed.

Sonics2k · 08-08-2012 12:25PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

Hi.

Stop ignoring the posts coming directly from Bluewolf and I, and then you'll have the direct answer you seek.

doctoremma · 08-08-2012 12:29PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

Jimi, there are people better equipped to answer your question. Having been raised by a mother and father, I simply cannot imagine or compare how I or life might have turned out had I been raised by a mother and mother or father and father.

Before I even begin to speculate, I'd have to have an answer to the following (from a much earlier post): what types of characteristics and interplay you are thinking of when you speak about gender-specific dynamics? Can you sketch a rough example of a parental interaction between female and male that you don't think would work between male and male or female and female?

Bannasidhe · 08-08-2012 12:30PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

I have answered it drawing on my experience as a lesbian mother who had to put in place a complex and expensive legal contingency plan to try and ensure that my son could remain with his other parent in the event of my death and not be placed in the custody of his abusive, alcoholic, homophobic grand father.

I experienced having a Mam and Dad and can honestly say that my son never experienced the dysfunctional dynamic I grew up in - due in my small part to having two parents who could communicate in a non-shouting way, who did not think going to the pub every night was a right, and who actually wanted him. He was no accident, not the result of a one-night stand or failed contraception. Alcohol played no part in his conception. He was planned and wanted before he was even conceived. How many heterosexuals can say that about their children?

Now - what are your experiences of parenting that qualify you to judge?

marienbad · 08-08-2012 01:12PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

Of course we can , I had had father that was a hell of a nice guy but hardly ever even spoke to any of his children and a mother that was on so many anti-drepressants she was'nt even there most of the time.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg but is all you need to know.

How were they as role models do you think ?

ShooterSF · 08-08-2012 01:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The argument has always been about the nuclear family, not simply having men and women about. The father and mother dynamic in the nuclear family is an important factor. That people saw this as a logical question, reveals that there is a real lack of thought.

What do you mean father and mother dynamic in the nuclear family? Could you clarify what positive difference it offers over a mother mother dynamic, a father father dynamic or a mother, father, mother dynamic?

Ive seen arguments for needing both a father and mother figure which while I don't agree, I can't understand how a father figure and 2 mother figures wouldn't provide for the concerns of those that argue for a mother and father. Here you have more time afforded to the attention of the child and possibly more knowledge to impart than without one of the mothers.

You seem to think it should be obvious to us what the advantages are but I swear to you Im not being obtuse (well I am taking it on faith that people who argue against same sex marriage are arguing based on the reasoning such as above and not on emotive or religious grounds dressed up in those arguments) I really don't see the advantage and would be happy to be shown them.

Delirium · 08-08-2012 02:06PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

Not everyone has personal experience to draw upon, in my case my dad raised myself and my siblings by himself after my mother died. Not everyone has your life experience so it's not unreasonable for people to ask you to qualify or elaborate on what you're saying.

08-08-2012 02:44PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Honestly, can none of you even draw on experience to answer this for yourselves? Seriously? Leaving your 'side' aside, can you seriously not answer this question for yourselves? Is it only 'studies' of some description that you can trust?

First of all, if you make the claim, the onus is on you to back it up. So if you want to claim that mother/father is better because of specific qualities, you'll have to tell us what they are.
Secondly, we have already posted responses from direct experience. Apparently that wasn't good enough for you.
Thirdly, phil is the one who is always going on about his studies that show xyz, so to counter with studies to show those claims are untrue and bad studies, well, it seems an obvious enough follow on.

Now, I'm still waiting for these "obvious" things you say are so inherent to a mother/father couple directly affecting the upbringing of a child in any meaningful way that a mother/mother or father/father can't provide.

JimiTime · 08-08-2012 03:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have answered it drawing on my experience as a lesbian mother who had to put in place a complex and expensive legal contingency plan to try and ensure that my son could remain with his other parent in the event of my death and not be placed in the custody of his abusive, alcoholic, homophobic grand father.

Just to clarify, nobody is suggesting that bad parents don't exist, or that just because your mum and dad are there for your rearing you'll be grand etc. Its not a case of, 'On the left, we have an alcoholic, abusive, drug addicted nuclear family, and on the right we have 2 professional clean living homosexuals. Who gets the kids??' This is about the reality of an adoption situation, where we have a qualifying nuclear family and a homosexual couple. In THAT scenario, for the sake of looking for the ideal for a child, the nuclear family is a shoe in. If a situation arises, like your own, it should be taken on its merits. For whatever reason, you had a child with a man, but did not wish to be with this man or he with you or whatever. This is not ideal for society, nor a child, but it happens. My nephew was fatherless unfortunately due to his fathers death when he was 2 weeks old. What the state should not do, is encourage it. For the cases that arise, it should deal with it fairly and compassionately. I'm assuming your case was dealt with, and you achieved your desired outcome?

He was no accident, not the result of a one-night stand or failed contraception. Alcohol played no part in his conception. He was planned and wanted before he was even conceived. How many heterosexuals can say that about their children?

It begs the question, did the father know what was on the way in terms of your lesbianism? Also, was any consideration given to the child in terms of him/her having a father? No problem if its too personal, its just you brought up the specifics of your scenario, and I'd need to know the details before I can give an opinion.

Now - what are your experiences of parenting that qualify you to judge?

As for my parenting experiences, I was raised by my mum and dad, and grew up in a house with my brother and sister. I now, by Gods grace, have two lovely children, and have been married 8 years. Don't know if that's very relevant though.

08-08-2012 04:02PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Just to clarify, nobody is suggesting that bad parents don't exist, or that just because your mum and dad are there for your rearing you'll be grand etc. Its not a case of, 'On the left, we have an alcoholic, abusive, drug addicted nuclear family, and on the right we have 2 professional clean living homosexuals. Who gets the kids??' This is about the reality of an adoption situation, where we have a qualifying nuclear family and a homosexual couple. In THAT scenario, for the sake of looking for the ideal for a child, the nuclear family is a shoe in.

So your claim is that every heterosexual couple that meets the minimum qualification criteria is better than every homosexual couple, no matter how far the homosexual couple are above the minimum criteria?

And in case you haven't noticed, or just plain forgot, you haven't yet stated why the heterosexual couple are inherently "better" than the homosexual couple, despite your failure to do so being pointed out multiple times

Bannasidhe · 08-08-2012 04:03PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Just to clarify, nobody is suggesting that bad parents don't exist, or that just because your mum and dad are there for your rearing you'll be grand etc. Its not a case of, 'On the left, we have an alcoholic, abusive, drug addicted nuclear family, and on the right we have 2 professional clean living homosexuals. Who gets the kids??' This is about the reality of an adoption situation, where we have a qualifying nuclear family and a homosexual couple. In THAT scenario, for the sake of looking for the ideal for a child, the nuclear family is a shoe in. If a situation arises, like your own, it should be taken on its merits. For whatever reason, you had a child with a man, but did not wish to be with this man or he with you or whatever. This is not ideal for society, nor a child, but it happens. My nephew was fatherless unfortunately due to his fathers death when he was 2 weeks old. What the state should not do, is encourage it. For the cases that arise, it should deal with it fairly and compassionately. I'm assuming your case was dealt with, and you achieved your desired outcome?

It begs the question, did the father know what was on the way in terms of your lesbianism? Also, was any consideration given to the child in terms of him/her having a father? No problem if its too personal, its just you brought up the specifics of your scenario, and I'd need to know the details before I can give an opinion.

As for my parenting experiences, I was raised by my mum and dad, and grew up in a house with my brother and sister. I now, by Gods grace, have two lovely children, and have been married 8 years. Don't know if that's very relevant though.

No I had a child with a woman whose biological father was a Gay man so I doubt very much if my lesbianism was much of an issue for him.

As for your other points - they have been addressed Ad nauseam and perhaps you would do me and others the courtesy of reading the whole thread rather than asking us to repeat ourselves.

Do you have any experience of same-sex couples raising children?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-08-2012 04:06PM

JimiTime wrote: »

the ideal for a child, the nuclear family is a shoe in.

You could almost be a sock puppet for Philologos because he does exactly what you do. You and he just repeat over and over that this is the "ideal" but never seem to actually back this claim up in any way. Repeating it over and over seems to be a valid approach to discourse in the minds of your side of this discussion.

What people are trying to establish is WHY you feel it is the "ideal". But yourself and your cohort have managed to avoid this question at every turn to the point he, if not you, has now run away.

Again: What attributes actually relevant to the successful and healthy upbringing of a child is somehow the purview of one specific parental configuration over any other which therefore elevates that configuration to being the "ideal"?

Penn · 08-08-2012 04:15PM

JimiTime wrote: »

This is about the reality of an adoption situation, where we have a qualifying nuclear family and a homosexual couple. In THAT scenario, for the sake of looking for the ideal for a child, the nuclear family is a shoe in.

But Jimi, obviously when considering suitable parents to adopt a child, the fact that one couple is heterosexual and one is homosexual is obviously taken into account. The adoption service has to decide which couple is best suited to raising the child, and the couples' marital status, sexual orientation etc is all taken into consideration. If they decide that the homosexual couple is more suited to adopting the child and can give it a better home, shouldn't the child go to them? The fact that they're a homosexual couple was taken into account and they were still deemed to be better adoptive parents, isn't that in the best interests of the child?

The most suitable available parents should always be chosen, regardless of sexual orientation. If that's a heterosexual couple, that's fine. If that's a homosexual couple, should the child be given to a less suitable couple just because they're heterosexual, even though it's not in the best interests of the child?

Bannasidhe · 08-08-2012 04:20PM

Penn wrote: »

But Jimi, obviously when considering suitable parents to adopt a child, the fact that one couple is heterosexual and one is homosexual is obviously taken into account. The adoption service has to decide which couple is best suited to raising the child, and the couples' marital status, sexual orientation etc is all taken into consideration. If they decide that the homosexual couple is more suited to adopting the child and can give it a better home, shouldn't the child go to them? The fact that they're a homosexual couple was taken into account and they were still deemed to be better adoptive parents, isn't that in the best interests of the child?

The most suitable available parents should always be chosen, regardless of sexual orientation. If that's a heterosexual couple, that's fine. If that's a homosexual couple, should the child be given to a less suitable couple just because they're heterosexual, even though it's not in the best interests of the child?

I suspect the answer is the homosexual couple could never be better then this so called ideal heterosexual couple. How can one possibly be better than the ideal?

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

Comments