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

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

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 wrote: »

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

Then we can all move forward.

I did.

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?

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

JimiTime wrote: »

I did.

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

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.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

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

I feel sorry for you.

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.

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"

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.

Bannasidhe

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

JimiTime wrote: »

This need/desire to gather together to tell each other how I have no argument etc is quite intriguing.

It's plausible that if you are confronted with not just one but several apparently intelligent and articulate people, each raising perfectly reasonable points (and supporting those made by others), at some point, a little bit of you might just think "Hang on, maybe there's something in what they're saying".

JimiTime wrote: »

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?

You have told us that you have something very important to add to this conversation, something which might cause us to entirely rethink our arguments. But you won't say what that thing is.

I want to know, simple as.

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?

Because this isn't a discussion behind locked doors. It's quite obvious there is absolutely no way you will change your mind, regardless of the facts, evidence, experiences, truth, etc. (or at least, you won't admit it if you do). But to someone reading this thread, it's quite obvious that your position is utterly without foundation and belongs in the same category with other nonsense like the flat-earth and Nazi moon-base theories

ShooterSF

Just in case you aren't aware of this Jimi your approach to this topic has so far suggested that the idea that your secular beliefs and religious ones are the same is no coincidence. At least to me anyway, though I get the feeling I'm not alone. Now considering we both know arguing for laws in our society based solely on religious beliefs not shared by everyone in society is wrong, the dishonest face saving thing to do would seem to be to claim to have "obvious rational evidence" that does not need pointing out to people as your real reasoning. Evidence you refuse to put forth for numerous reasons.

The thing is though that that approach is so obviously the next logical step for someone in that situation that even if it doesn't fit you, your actions will make it look as if that is what you are doing.

sbsquarepants

I think 28064212 has hit the nail on the head jimi - most people here, myself included have already accepted you will never change your mind, you don't seem to posses the capability - but your steadfast refusal to accept facts and unwillingness to let go of an idea, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it has i'm sure changed the mind of others, or at least got them thinking.
Sometimes we are too self important to accept we might be wrong, but yet we can see the wrong in others when they do exactly as we've done. That's why people here debate this issue with you - it's like pointing out junkies or winos to your kids, be carefull you say, or you might end up like that!

doctoremma wrote: »

You have told us that you have something very important to add to this conversation, something which might cause us to entirely rethink our arguments. But you won't say what that thing is.

I want to know, simple as.

The answers I have, have absolutely no value other than providing more things to argue. The answer will only have value, if they come from yourselves. Contrary to what some of you probably believe, I completely see how this approach comes across, but my goal is not to convince you. In fact, I don't see that as possible. My goal, is to start to get you guys thinking about things. It doesn't have to be now even. If its a case that you cannot in hindsight see what your father brought to the table, or what your mother brought to the table in terms of natural interaction while playing, teaching, disciplining, how they dealt with things practically and emotionally etc, then I'm telling you to start looking now at others, and even back to your own childhood. The little things, the rough housing, the throwing about, the gentle embraces, the feelings you had in terms of maybe running to mummy with a cut knee, but running to daddy when you were picked on or whatever. It wont be the same for everyone, and there will be exceptions, but you will find commonality in behaviour. As I said, if its not obvious to you now, then start looking, and stop depending on studies to inform you of what you should be thinking. That study I posted is allegedly not good enough as this that or the other was done, and likely opposite studies will probably picked apart too. Usually you'll find something to pick on, if you really look for it. The social sciences are not exactly an exact science, add to that who's funding, agenda's etc and its not exactly the bastion of truth. Add on to that further, that we are looking for studies to provide some kind of conclusion in terms of commonality in terms of alternative parenting structures which are so varied, (2 men with adopted child, 2 men where one is the biological father, 2 women with adopted child, 2 women where one is the biological parent. Transgender male and lesbian transgender etc etc ), are relatively rare considering that 2.8% of the male population, and 1.4% percentage of the female population identify as homosexual an even less parenting children, then it becomes increasingly dubious to think that there is any study that could truly answer such questions. Maybe studies showing the importance of fathers, or the importance of mothers would be better equipped to answer the questions. As it stands, I think what is destined to happen, is that future generations of children up for adoption will be the guinea pigs, and only in the future will we truly know if there will be consequences. And yes, I know I've implied that it will happen, as I do believe it will. I would be in little doubt that the LGBT lobby will win in all of this.

JimiTime wrote: »

My goal, is to start to get you guys thinking about things.

I AM thinking but clearly not to your standard as I still can't come up with the differences you seem to believe are glaringly obvious.

JimiTime wrote: »

If its a case that you cannot in hindsight see what your father brought to the table, or what your mother brought to the table in terms of natural interaction while playing, teaching, disciplining, how they dealt with things practically and emotionally etc, then I'm telling you to start looking now at others, and even back to your own childhood.

I can completely see what both my mother and father brought to the table. What I can also see is that not one of those characteristics was necessarily linked to their gender.

JimiTime wrote: »

The little things, the rough housing, the throwing about, the gentle embraces, the feelings you had in terms of maybe running to mummy with a cut knee, but running to daddy when you were picked on or whatever.

I ran to Mummy when I had a cut knee because my Mummy tended to play the role of sympathetic carer. Why can a Daddy not take this role?

JimiTime wrote: »

It wont be the same for everyone and there will be exceptions

Concession noted. So a male with a perfectly well-developed sense of empathy is equally good at smacking the pavement and putting on a plaster as your stereotypical woman?

Otherwise known as "I have no reasons beyond a gut feeling that I'm right. I will not change my mind, no matter what evidence is presented. You're wrong, for reasons which I can't explain"

Out of curiosity (just making a point about how absurd your argument is, I don't imagine for a second you'll actually answer), why is it not a "social experiment" to deny adoption rights for gay parents? You don't know whether it will be positive or negative to continue to deny children the opportunity to be adopted by gay parents. By your own criteria, your position is just as much a "social experiment" as allowing adoption by gay parents.