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

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, I wonder at why you feel the need to post this? Just so you know, I don't mind you feeling that way, or feel in anyway insulted. 'Oh a guy on the internet doesn't get it', is hardly something I think about (much, )This need/desire to gather together to tell each other how I have no argument etc is quite intriguing. Why is it, that you give me the oxygen of attention then? If I have nothing to offer, and I've made no sense, then why keep engaging?

To either hopefully stir any shred of honesty you might have into getting you to actually think about what you believe and how dishonest you have to be. Or failing that (which is clearly likely) to express and make clear just how dishonest, irrational and backward your position is.

Why did you bother to engage in a discussion when you know your stance does not stand up to it and you are unwilling to change your mind?

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

What would you be thinking of?

Do not understand the question. Can you expound upon it a little bit and perhaps I can help you more.

The point I was making was that the only differences I can think of between my parents were differences related to them simply being different people. Different Hobbies. Different interests. Different tastes.

But that is not relevant to this thread or your points because Gay Parents will be different in the same way for the same reason as my parents were.

The point you appear to be making is there is some difference.... relevant to the upbringing of children.... which is contingent not on their different persons, but on their being different sex.

But you run a mile, like your cohort, when asked to say what they actually are. Usually covering your tracks with cop outs or calling everyone liars or biased or whatever.

JimiTime wrote: »

If I have nothing to offer, and I've made no sense, then why keep engaging?

Three reasons.

1) I am genuinely curious to see one of you touters of the mantra "One father and one mother is the ideal" actually back it up for once.

2) There is utility in pressing you on your position and letting others watch you duck, dive and resort to calling people liars or biased. Sometimes when arguing against people the best thing you can do is keep them talking and let them hang themselves and you and your cohort are two fine examples of this.

3) It IS after all a discussion forum. Asking us therefore why we are discussing things with you makes as much sense really as going to the zoo and asking people why they are looking at animals all the time.

King Mob wrote: »

What's worse is that he knows his stance is not supported by evidence or by anything convincing and that all the science and facts are against him. He knows his reasons will crumble away at the slightest amount of scrutiny but he's going to believe it anyway.

It's the definition of truthiness.

Again, I wonder at why you feel the need to post this? Just so you know, I don't mind you feeling that way, or feel in anyway insulted. 'Oh a guy on the internet doesn't get it', is hardly something I think about (much,

)This need/desire to gather together to tell each other how I have no argument etc is quite intriguing. Why is it, that you give me the oxygen of attention then? If I have nothing to offer, and I've made no sense, then why keep engaging?

28064212 wrote: »

The hypocrisy. A little over an hour ago, you decided to try patronising the entire group who are attempting to engage you in a discussion (on a discussion board, imagine that). After you were called out on it, you admitted that you were patronising. And now you have the audacity to comment on Bannasidhe's honesty for being patronising?

Thats not hypocrisy, I didn't hide it behind some 'I feel sorry for you', I just said what I said, and acknowledged that it is quite patronising. No biggie.

ShooterSF

JimiTime wrote: »

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

What? Gay mariage is ok. Wow. Fair play Jimi.

See I can respond to non existent posts too

Anyways you've been offered studies, personal experience from heterosexual families, single parent families, children of homosexual families and parents of homosexual families and have ignored them all and we all still sit here with bated breath dying to here something new as an argument against gay marriage because we're sure that deep down people must have a good reason that they haven't just verbalised right yet. They can't just be against equality without reason. Our hope in humanity is why you are still engaged.

Mostly I'm saddened that you have not offered a reason against polyamorous marriage when it comes to child raising because it seems like something that should suit your official concerns.

28064212 wrote: »

The hypocrisy. A little over an hour ago, you decided to try patronising the entire group who are attempting to engage you in a discussion (on a discussion board, imagine that). After you were called out on it, you admitted that you were patronising. And now you have the audacity to comment on Bannasidhe's honesty for being patronising?

What's worse is that he knows his stance is not supported by evidence or by anything convincing and that all the science and facts are against him. He knows his reasons will crumble away at the slightest amount of scrutiny but he's going to believe it anyway.

It's the definition of truthiness.

JimiTime wrote: »

No you don't, thats just a passive aggressive statement, like someone saying 'I'll pray for you', when they become frustrated. What you are really feeling is annoyance, but rather than honestly saying I'm p1ssed off with you, you write something a bit more subtle. How do I know? because if you actually felt sorry for me, you wouldn't tell me publically. No you want to patronise publically to show everyone I'm an object of your pity. Now I don't mind that, but maybe you could apply a little more honesty. Even in your insults, as I can take it.

The hypocrisy. A little over an hour ago, you decided to try patronising the entire group who are attempting to engage you in a discussion (on a discussion board, imagine that). After you were called out on it, you admitted that you were patronising. And now you have the audacity to comment on Bannasidhe's honesty for being patronising?

Links234

I would very much like to have kids some day, and I really, really hope that the world will become a better place for them by then.

28064212 wrote: »

Wasn't this thread, but a different thread (one that JimiTime was involved in shortly before the studies were posted and subsequently ripped apart)

Of course, I keep forgetting, studies don't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. Personal experience that doesn't explicitly agree with him doesn't matter. All that matters is his own personal "truth"

I was refering to this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80070363&postcount=606 Where he tears apart the Marks study and makes reference to the other. But you post does both and is a better one.

JimiTime wrote: »

No you don't, thats just a passive aggressive statement, like someone saying 'I'll pray for you', when they become frustrated. What you are really feeling is annoyance, but rather than honestly saying I'm p1ssed off with you, you write something a bit more subtle. How do I know? because if you actually felt sorry for me, you wouldn't tell me publically. No you want to patronise publically to show everyone I'm an object of your pity. Now I don't mind that, but maybe you could apply a little more honesty. Even in your insults, as I can take it.

I really honestly do. You seem to lack the ability to undertake any form of critical analyses but rely on what you believe or feel. I think that is a real shame.

I'm not even a teeny bit frustrated. You have given me a few chuckles today with your bobbing and weaving and ducking and diving. Do you box by any chance?

Delirium

28064212 wrote: »

Wasn't this thread, but a different thread (one that JimiTime was involved in shortly before the studies were posted and subsequently ripped apart)

Of course, I keep forgetting, studies don't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. Personal experience that doesn't explicitly agree with him doesn't matter. All that matters is his own personal "truth"

Which he is strangely reticent about sharing with everyone.

King Mob wrote: »

And both of these "studies" have been ripped apart by oldswinr earlier in the thread.
You'll have to provide something better.

Wasn't this thread, but a different thread (one that JimiTime was involved in shortly before the studies were posted and subsequently ripped apart)

Of course, I keep forgetting, studies don't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. Personal experience that doesn't explicitly agree with him doesn't matter. All that matters is his own personal "truth"

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I feel sorry for you.

No you don't, thats just a passive aggressive statement, like someone saying 'I'll pray for you', when they become frustrated. What you are really feeling is annoyance, but rather than honestly saying I'm p1ssed off with you, you write something a bit more subtle. How do I know? because if you actually felt sorry for me, you wouldn't tell me publically. No you want to patronise publically to show everyone I'm an object of your pity. Now I don't mind that, but maybe you could apply a little more honesty. Even in your insults, as I can take it.

JimiTime wrote: »

Then why are you still here talking to me? If I am simply trolling, why feed me?

I feel sorry for you.

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

And both of these "studies" have been ripped apart by oldswinr earlier in the thread.
You'll have to provide something better.

So how do you explain how every good paper on the subject does not argee with you? Why does every major organisation that oversees the disciplines involved all promote this "myth"?

And if you are not relying on, and ignoring studies, how do you ensure you position is 1) free from bias 2) free from confounding factors and 3) indicative of a large population?

The answer is you can't do that without properly controlled scientific studies.

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.

And people have been showing you that those differences are not the case.
But you're ignoring those because they destroy that point.

So again, either back up your claim that straight parents are more ideal with something tangible or do the honest thing and withdraw it.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

I did.

Can you link me? As I don't remember ever reading any?

JimiTime wrote: »

I did.

You did what? Move forward? Well, moved on, I wouldn't call it forward. A crab-like movement, maybe

Set out the differences? No, of course you didn't

Bannasidhe wrote: »

neither does other people's experiences, opinions or good old facts.

Then why are you still here talking to me? If I am simply trolling, why feed me?

doctoremma wrote: »

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

Then we can all move forward.

I did.

JimiTime wrote: »

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

neither does other people's experiences, opinions or good old facts.

doctoremma

gvn wrote: »

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.

I appreciate this. However, as I have said earlier, I am genuinely keen to explore and expand my understanding of this subject. If Jimi has some insight that I have heretofore missed, I'd be interested to hear it.

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.

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.

doctoremma

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.