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

Delirium · 09-08-2012 01:03PM

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.

Corkfeen · 09-08-2012 01:04PM

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....

doctoremma · 09-08-2012 01:05PM

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

Please say no.

Bannasidhe · 09-08-2012 01:09PM

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

JimiTime · 09-08-2012 01:10PM

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.

MrPudding · 09-08-2012 01:10PM

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

MrPudding · 09-08-2012 01:12PM

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

JimiTime · 09-08-2012 01:19PM

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.

Bannasidhe · 09-08-2012 01:19PM

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 · 09-08-2012 01:20PM

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.

Bannasidhe · 09-08-2012 01:25PM

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 · 09-08-2012 01:31PM

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.

Benny_Cake · 09-08-2012 01:33PM

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.

NuMarvel · 09-08-2012 01:33PM

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.

ShooterSF · 09-08-2012 01:34PM

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".

Bannasidhe · 09-08-2012 01:35PM

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....

sbsquarepants · 09-08-2012 01:36PM

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!

doctoremma · 09-08-2012 01:41PM

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...

JimiTime · 09-08-2012 01:42PM

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.

09-08-2012 01:44PM

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?

Bannasidhe · 09-08-2012 01:44PM

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.

JimiTime · 09-08-2012 01:44PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

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".

Haha. Yeah, i know where you're coming from, but I live in hope.

JimiTime · 09-08-2012 01:47PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

No, I'm asking them to think about their experiences and observe others in light of what I've said.

09-08-2012 01:48PM

JimiTime wrote: »

No, I'm asking them to think about their experiences and observe others in light of what I've said.

While not doing the same yourself

Bannasidhe · 09-08-2012 01:49PM

JimiTime wrote: »

No, I'm asking them to think about their experiences and observe others in light of what I've said.

No - whenever someone does you the courtesy of having a think here and now and posting a response (as as Penn did) you dismiss them if they do not agree with you.

Face it Jimi - the consensus is against you - no matter what you feel.

JimiTime · 09-08-2012 01:51PM

King Mob wrote: »

Either post a study or withdraw the claim.

Ta da
and Ta da

I link to these with the caveat that they have absolutely no bearing on my opinion on the matter. But they at the very least dispel the myth that theres no difference.

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?

I'm not asking for people to accept my opinions as fact, I'm asking them to look and observe the differences I set out earlier. Going forward, that can easily be done.

Bannasidhe · 09-08-2012 01:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not asking for people to accept my opinions as fact, I'm asking them to look and observe the differences I set out earlier. Going forward, that can easily be done.

You fail to accept that people do not agree with you.

doctoremma · 09-08-2012 01:54PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not asking for people to accept my opinions as fact, I'm asking them to look and observe the differences I set out earlier. Going forward, that can easily be done.

Yeah, see what we need you to do is actually set out the differences.

Then we can all move forward.

09-08-2012 01:54PM

Jimi has already plainly stated that he won't change his opinion. It's also clear that he's refusing to take part in any semblance of a debate with his absolutely ridiculous bobbing-and-weaving, and outright refusal to answer even basic questions. It seems to me that there's absolutely no point trying to continue to debate with him: it'll just lead to frustration.

JimiTime · 09-08-2012 01:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Face it Jimi - the consensus is against you - no matter what you feel.

You think I don't know the consensus is against me here? Come on lol! The consensus simply does not matter to me.

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

Comments