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

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not asking people what I think, but rather to think about their circumstances and observations as to the differences.

No - you are demanding that people ignore the evidence, dismiss their own experiences, circumstances and observations and conform to what you want them to believe.

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

You see, I could post a study etc (Which I did quite a while back to my shame ), but I don't think that would be right in answering the question, because that has nothing to do with how I arrived at my conclusion. Again, those raised by a mother and a father, I truly believe know the answer as to how a father and a mother differ. Now maybe they underestimate the differences and their effect on a child, but I hope the differences are at least acknowledged soon even if not here publicly.

Either post a study or withdraw the claim.

Every single study that compares gay and straight parents find there is no difference between them. One is as good as the other and one is not inherently better than the other.
No one on your side of the debate has produced anything to support the notion that straight parents are better or more ideal.
So the only honest thing you can do is either back that claim up with something tangible or withdraw it.

Simply stating you know it is from experience is not acceptable or convincing, which you apparently know since you don't seem to be accepting testimonials from gay parents and people raised by gay parents.
If you aren't accepting peoples opinions as fact, why should anyone accept yours?

NuMarvel wrote: »

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure knowing that fire burns is a learned behaviour. You either learn directly, by putting your hand into the fire, or indirectly, by someone else telling you it hurts, or through the reactions of other to fire, etc.

And even if it's not learned behaviour, if someone asks you to back up the statement that fire will burn your hand, it can be done.

This has been pointed out to you already, but that's not how discussions work. You make the assertion, it's up to YOU to support it.

Otherwise, it's going to become the message board equivalent of playing Guess Who in the dark.

I'm not asking people what I think, but rather to think about their circumstances and observations as to the differences.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure knowing that fire burns is a learned behaviour. You either learn directly, by putting your hand into the fire, or indirectly, by someone else telling you it hurts, or through the reactions of other to fire, etc.

In my case, I learned by putting my brother's hand into our fireplace.

Ah, the early blossoming of a fruitful career in science...

sbsquarepants

doctoremma wrote: »

Jimi, you're not thinking of gender-specific physical differences, are you? Like two Dads not being able to breast-feed?

Please say no.

Can't they emma, can't they?

And you call yourself a doctor!

JimiTime wrote: »

You see, I could post a study etc (Which I did quite a while back to my shame ), but I don't think that would be right in answering the question, because that has nothing to do with how I arrived at my conclusion. Again, those raised by a mother and a father, I truly believe know the answer as to how a father and a mother differ. Now maybe they underestimate the differences and their effect on a child, but I hope the differences are at least acknowledged soon even if not here publicly.

I wouldn't hold your breath as unless there is some factory out there producing identikit Mothers and Fathers everyone's experiences will be different. That or we all move to Stepford....

ShooterSF

Wow that's a new low! "Your studies and personal experience that contradicts my point of view are all wrong because I have proof from personal experience and on top of all that I'm not going to tell you. You have to guess! Trolololol."

If that's what amounts for debate on this issue I can't understand how gay marriage isn't legal today. Imagine if you were around 50 years ago making the same argument about inter racial marriage "Oh parents of the same race make for a better environment for their children just look to your own experiences and you'll see the proof. What? You can't see any difference. You're not looking hard enough. No I can't just give you the reasons. You'll make fun of them and twist them. For your wicked liberal popularist ways".

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, you don't need to put your hand in a fire to know its going to burn.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure knowing that fire burns is a learned behaviour. You either learn directly, by putting your hand into the fire, or indirectly, by someone else telling you it hurts, or through the reactions of other to fire, etc.

And even if it's not learned behaviour, if someone asks you to back up the statement that fire will burn your hand, it can be done.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd rather encourage those on your side of the argument, who have experience of a good mum and dad explain the differences I pointed out.

This has been pointed out to you already, but that's not how discussions work. You make the assertion, it's up to YOU to support it.

Otherwise, it's going to become the message board equivalent of playing Guess Who in the dark.

Benny_Cake

Corkfeen wrote: »

I have a sudden urge to post Dr Evil talking about his parents....

Luge lessons, summers in Rangoon....

Parents are ultimately individuals. My father and mother are quite different to other fathers and mothers and to attempt to generalise isn't going to get us anywhere... unless, as was pointed out, we rely on stereotypes of traditional gender roles. In short, when it comes to areas such as adoption, same-sex couples should meet the same rigorous requirements as other couples, and if they are considered to be the best potential parents for the child, so be it.

MrPudding wrote: »

And what evidence do you have to support this assertion?

MrP

You see, I could post a study etc (Which I did quite a while back to my shame

), but I don't think that would be right in answering the question, because that has nothing to do with how I arrived at my conclusion. Again, those raised by a mother and a father, I truly believe know the answer as to how a father and a mother differ. Now maybe they underestimate the differences and their effect on a child, but I hope the differences are at least acknowledged soon even if not here publicly.

doctoremma wrote: »

Herein lies the problem.

I am nothing but fallible. What I think and what I feel bears no necessary link to what is true or what is right.

I feel like giving some people a slap upside the head.
I know this is wrong.

Notable lack of Bannasidhe slapping people upside the head.

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree that I give my own affirmation a lot more weight than studies etc. I trust myself I suppose.

Herein lies the problem.

I am nothing but fallible. What I think and what I feel bears no necessary link to what is true or what is right.

JimiTime wrote: »

No it hasn't.

I agree that I give my own affirmation a lot more weight than studies etc. I trust myself I suppose. You are also right that I wont change my mind, as my morality is objectively based on God, and even if I couldn't see a difference, his ordinance would still trump the mob opinion. As for 'outright facts', I don't know what you are referring to?

Actually, I haven't let homosexuality into this at all. the homosexuality factor is there in terms of adoption, because they are the ones wanting the right to undermine the nuclear family. If it was a group of hetero's, the argument would be no different. I'd object to single parents being given equal footing with the nuclear family also. Children are the issue here, and that they are going to be the guinea pigs in this social experiment, for the sake of a political agenda pains me.

The issue, is what is the best for a child, not if homosexuals can be good parents.

And to be perfectly honest with you, I'm delighted that you honour your mother in this way. I don't doubt she done a good job. Thats not the issue is though.

and we are back to:
- Is marriage only about children?
- Should couples be allowed to marry if they have no intention of having children?
-Should post- menopausal/infertile women be allowed to marry?
- See previous posts re: children/marriage.

Anyone else think it is a tad ironic that one of the criticisms of the current Civil Partnership legislation is it's silence on children which is why so many Gay couples want 'marriage' so that same-sex couples can provide legal security for their children?

Makes one wonder who really has the best interests of children at heart - those who seek to provide the children of same-sex couple security and legal protection or those who wish those children to remain in their current quasi-'illegitimate' status where the State denies then the 'right' to two parents...

doctoremma wrote: »

Quite possibly the most patronising pile of cack I have ever seen on this forum.

I happen to agree (apart from the cack bit

), but thats what I think so at least yee know where ye stand.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd object to single parents being given equal footing with the nuclear family also. Children are the issue here, and that they are going to be the guinea pigs in this social experiment, for the sake of a political agenda pains me.

But single parents can already adopt.

MrP

MrPudding

doctoremma wrote: »

Jimi, you're not thinking of gender-specific physical differences, are you? Like two Dads not being able to breast-feed?

Please say no.

That is exacly why I qualified my post with "... which would be relevant to the quality of upbringing a child might receive." Just in case.

MrP

Sonics2k wrote: »

And that has been disproven.

No it hasn't.

You are ignoring posts, studies, personal statements and outright facts because you simply do not want to change your mind.

I agree that I give my own affirmation a lot more weight than studies etc. I trust myself I suppose. You are also right that I wont change my mind, as my morality is objectively based on God, and even if I couldn't see a difference, his ordinance would still trump the mob opinion. As for 'outright facts', I don't know what you are referring to?

You are openly allowing your personal opinions on homosexuality to influence your decision on whether or not they are suitable to raise children.

Actually, I haven't let homosexuality into this at all. the homosexuality factor is there in terms of adoption, because they are the ones wanting the right to undermine the nuclear family. If it was a group of hetero's, the argument would be no different. I'd object to single parents being given equal footing with the nuclear family also. Children are the issue here, and that they are going to be the guinea pigs in this social experiment, for the sake of a political agenda pains me.

Well here's a nice little closing statement. Homosexuals are perfectly suitable to raise a child, as much as any heterosexual child.

The issue, is what is the best for a child, not if homosexuals can be good parents.

I can only hope that I can raise my own two children half as well as my lesbian mother raised me. Because she really did give, provide and teach me everything I needed.

And to be perfectly honest with you, I'm delighted that you honour your mother in this way. I don't doubt she done a good job. Thats not the issue is though.

doctoremma wrote: »

Jimi, you're not thinking of gender-specific physical differences, are you? Like two Dads not being able to breast-feed?

Please say no.

Could be valid.....Except that apparently men can do this

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-males-can-lactate

My mother couldn't breastfeed - inverted nipples

Jimi, you're not thinking of gender-specific physical differences, are you? Like two Dads not being able to breast-feed?

Please say no.

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

So tell us the things that WERE done by your dad, but not mum in their dealings with you that you say COULD have been done by either of them.

*Thinks about differences between mother and father*
Erm... My father for example has very little in common with other fathers, he did not endow me with special abilities that only a father can. Feck, I learnt how to use powertools on my own. All my cooking abilities originated from home economics in secondary school. :pac: In terms of the people that probably had more impact than my father or mother are my brother and sisters, does this mean that nobody will develop properly without a brother and sisters?

My point is that most parents share very little in common. You benefit from bonding with your parent(s) although I really can't see how the sex of the parent would matter in this regard. Some fathers are reserved while the wife is outgoing or vice versa. All the traits are interchangable between both sexes and I have seen no evidence for such a unique trait that only one sex holds, every single person develops differently so there parenting will also differ.

I have a sudden urge to post Dr Evil talking about his parents....

Delirium

I'm beginning to think that unless a view of parenting as viewed through the mind of someone from the 1950s is put forward, Jimi will just disagree/ignore the post.

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Awww, disappointed. Mammy does the cookin, kinda stuff. I was expecting better than that Penn

Ok, this is a genuine call for honesty. Now please think about it. HONESTLY, forgetting about arguments, maybe looking silly, or suferring the ire of ones side etc. Can any of you seriously not come up with differences in how a father does, acts and deals with things, in general, to the way a mother does? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't hold back your answer if you've got one.

And like I said, a person's parenting style cannot be generalised so easily as "a mother acts this way and a father acts this way". How a person acts as a parent depends on how they act as a person. You're using stereotypical behaviour as a basis, and while you may have grown up in a family which conformed to those stereotypical behaviours, that's not the case for everyone else. People here who have had far different upbringings than you or I have explained their upbringing to you, and you have still not been able to point out anything they were missing from their upbringing which has in any way affected them negatively.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Awww, disappointed. Mammy does the cookin, kinda stuff. I was expecting better than that Penn

Ok, this is a genuine call for honesty. Now please think about it. HONESTLY, forgetting about arguments, maybe looking silly, or suferring the ire of ones side etc. Can any of you seriously not come up with differences in how a father does, acts and deals with things, in general, to the way a mother does? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't hold back your answer if you've got one.

Seriously, why won't you enlighten us? Why will you not tell us? I was raised by a single mother... Actually, that is not strictly true, I did have a few years with an abusive stepfather. Aside form that, I was raised by my mother. Given that all I could really have learned from my step father was how to mentally and physically abuse your spouse and children, something which I believe a woman would also be perfectly capable of, I too am struggling to come up with something one parent could do that the other couldn't, which would be relevant to the quality of upbringing a child might receive.

JimiTime wrote: »

No, I claimed that the optimum environment was with a mother and a father.

And what evidence do you have to support this assertion?

MrP

JimiTime wrote: »

Not ignored, encouraged independent thought on the matter. Much better for you guys to answer it, than me.

I'm looking for people to think, not to go away. I'm looking for people to see the answers that are already within them, rather than make it easy to argue and pick apart points. Its not about winning an argument. I know, that no matter what I say, it'll be torn apart. Studies will be posted, and then a counter study posted, etc etc. I'd rather people just thought about it. Its obvious to me, and many more, including fatherless people I know. I can only assume the answers have been dulled in the people on your side of the argument due to a desire not to accept it.

Quite possibly the most patronising pile of cack I have ever seen on this forum.

JimiTime wrote: »

Dear oh dear oh dear. And this is why no answer will be spoonfed to you.

Oh dear, Oh dear Jimi - is that the best you can do?

JimiTime wrote: »

Awww, disappointed. Mammy does the cookin, kinda stuff. I was expecting better than that Penn

Ok, this is a genuine call for honesty. Now please think about it. HONESTLY, forgetting about arguments, maybe looking silly, or suferring the ire of ones side etc. Can any of you seriously not come up with differences in how a father does, acts and deals with things, in general, to the way a mother does? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't hold back your answer if you've got one.

Jimi, you're better than this. Surely you're better than this?

Penn indulged you and gave examples of differences between his Mum and his Dad. I once suggested that, potentially, you were imagining a disciplinarian father tempered by a sympathetic mother, that kind of thing. You have rudely dismissed Penn's genuine attempt to address your question (despite the burden of proof being yours), I suspect that my example would be considered similarly facile.

This means we aren't going to be able to match the criteria you have in your head for key gender-specific differences between Mum and Dad. Therefore, I simply cannot understand why you won't enlighten us in our ignorance*. If you're working up to a big one, an irrefutable difference, I suggest now is the time, as this "debate" isn't even worthy of a five year old.

*Not true.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm looking for people to think, not to go away. I'm looking for people to see the answers that are already within them, rather than make it easy to argue and pick apart points. Its not about winning an argument. I know, that no matter what I say, it'll be torn apart. Studies will be posted, and then a counter study posted, etc etc. I'd rather people just thought about it. Its obviousto me, and many more, including fatherless people I know. I can only assume the answers have been dulled in the people on your side of the argument due to a desire not to accept it.

No - you are looking for people to agree with you. But, dear Jimi, they do not agree.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My nieces had a mother and a father (my brother as it happens)- their father worked in a different country their entire lives (all of them are in their 20s now). They saw him briefly on a Friday night, on Saturday he was either working in his home office or glued to some sports channel (not now darling, I'm watching the soccer/rugby/golf/fly racing) until dinner time (around 9 pm as they are very 'continental'), Sunday was 'his' day to play golf and zip around Switzerland in his sportscar for ****s and giggles. By the time the girls got up on Monday morning he was gone again. Their name for him was 'The Man from Milan'

My son had two parents who were always there apart from a brief period when I worked in a different city and returned home every Thurs evening and returned to work early Monday morning. We then spent the weekend doing family stuff together (all 3 of us). I quit my job as it wasn't fair to my son.

Apparently my brother's family life vis a vis his children was better than mine... the mind boggles.

Dear oh dear oh dear. And this is why no answer will be spoonfed to you.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sonics and bluewolf have already answered this question re: being raised without a father many, many, many, manymanymany, times already but you don't want to hear what they have to say.

Its irrelevant, as the argument is not that children will be monsters if not raised by their mothers and fathers.

Do you object to single parents too since you are concerned about children not having a father/mother figure?

I don't know what you mean by object. Women have babies with men. If they don't stay with the man or whatever, theres not a lot that can be done, but yes, I believe that child has missed out on having the optimal environment for their development. What I don't think should be done, is for the state to support a system that leaves children without mothers or fathers. Now, the welfare system was quated earlier by someone in relation to single parents. Well, unfortunately, its a fact of life and we must be compassionate and consider the child. Could it be better arranged, maybe, but thats a whole different discussion.

You write about 'differences' but when asked to clarify what exactly you think these differences are you ignore this too.

Not ignored, encouraged independent thought on the matter. Much better for you guys to answer it, than me.

One would suspect that you are not interested in a discussion but are intent on repeating the same old tosh over and over in hope that we will all go away. Hate to be the bringer of ill tidings, but Jimi - we ain't going away.

I'm looking for people to think, not to go away. I'm looking for people to see the answers that are already within them, rather than make it easy to argue and pick apart points. Its not about winning an argument. I know, that no matter what I say, it'll be torn apart. Studies will be posted, and then a counter study posted, etc etc. I'd rather people just thought about it. Its obviousto me, and many more, including fatherless people I know. I can only assume the answers have been dulled in the people on your side of the argument due to a desire not to accept it.