nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

PDN

Certain individuals seem to be somewhat obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. To avoid the Forum being over-run with numerous threads on this subject, I am launching a MegaThread similar to the ones we already have on other subjects.

Please note that the Forum Charter still applies to megathreads - so try to treat each other with respect and courtesy, even if the subject is one that makes you hot and bothered.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

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

Another cop out and dodge. And a very arrogant, patronizing and disingenuous one at that.

Reading back over this thread I see many of the writers have put a lot of time, thought, education, research and effort into their posts. With a simple wave of your hand you declare all your opposition need to "start thinking".

Well bully for you I am afraid because I HAVE thought about this issue at great great length, researched it, and talked with many people like yourself and still, despite it all, I can not find a single answer to the question I asked both you and Philologos many many times now.... a question you have played every cop out trick in the book to avoid answering.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm telling you to start looking now at others, and even back to your own childhood.

And I'm telling you that we have done so and none of us can find anything to support your position for you. Any differences in play, education and the like came from the fact they were different personalities, not from them being different sex.

So your whole foundation here is crumbling. You have nothing to stand on here. So if you think there is something we are missing then start mentioning it because this canard of getting us to do it for you is an egregious failure.

JimiTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So your whole foundation here is crumbling. You have nothing to stand on here. So if you think there is something we are missing then start mentioning it because this canard of getting us to do it for you is an egregious failure.

Not at all, if thats your conclusions, and you believe that you've honestly looked at the issue, then that's that. You think I can show you otherwise? As I have repeated, my answers would have absolutely no value, but to give you something to pick at. Only answers that you arrive at will have value to you. So I'm simply saying have a look at it, and don't just pass your responsibility to think to some social studies. If you have done this, and have arrived at your conclusions, then we disagree on the importance that a good father and a mother has in the raring a child.

Its not up for discussion in terms of me being convinced, as I've made clear earlier. I'm not for turning. Its just too obvious for me. I am in no doubt about the important and unique role a father and a mother play. Maybe some of you will eventually see the value, hopefully anyway.

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

I am in no doubt about the important and unique role a father and a mother play.

such as?

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all, if thats your conclusions, and you believe that you've honestly looked at the issue, then that's that. You think I can show you otherwise? As I have repeated, my answers would have absolutely no value, but to give you something to pick at. Only answers that you arrive at will have value to you. So I'm simply saying have a look at it, and don't just pass your responsibility to think to some social studies. If you have done this, and have arrived at your conclusions, then we disagree on the importance that a good father and a mother has in the raring a child.

Its not up for discussion in terms of me being convinced, as I've made clear earlier. I'm not for turning. Its just too obvious for me. I am in no doubt about the important and unique role a father and a mother play. Maybe some of you will eventually see the value, hopefully anyway.

The difference being, as always, no-one is forcing you to live life in their way. Your personal opinion, for which you have no basis beyond gut instinct, means that you think other people shouldn't get to live their life the way they want to. Lots of people had gut instinct feelings about desegregation, the decriminalization of homosexuality, the women's suffragette movement. They were wrong, and their instincts were wrong, just like yours are now

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all, if thats your conclusions, and you believe that you've honestly looked at the issue, then that's that.

I have looked at it as much as I can given the furtive and secretive nature of people on your side of the fence. There is only so much research I can do on my own.

However if your side of this discussion just keeps harping on the mantra that "differences exist" but simultaneously refuse to name a single one of them, then I am at a research dead end.

I would also be forgive for reaching the conclusion I have reached.... which is that there IS nothing on that list for you to tell us. There are only so many times we can see this "I have the evidence but I will not be showing you it" canard before we start to realise you do not actually have the evidence at all and have just been, for want of a better word, lying.

JimiTime wrote: »

my answers would have absolutely no value, but to give you something to pick at.

If they existed that is. But as I just said I am starting to strongly suspect the explanation for you not giving any answers is that you do not HAVE them to give.

However even if you do, the fact you expect them to be so easily picked apart just tells me that even you do not have faith in the efficacy of your own arguments. If arguments are persuasive they will persuade me. Persuasive arguments always have.

If your arguments are poor or even false they yes, I admit quite openly I am likely to pick them apart so I can see why you are scared to give them. Again: Assuming they actually exist. Which I do not assume. Or believe.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not for turning.

Nor do I have any intention to try or desire to see it happen. I am not on forums like this to convert anyones position on anything. I am on forums like this to test my own positions for my own self to see if I need to alter, remove, improve or correct them.

So no, I am not asking for your evidence, arguments, data or reasonings for the purpose of attacking them and converting you. I am asking for them to see for myself what those arguments are and whether I should alter my own position because of them.

You vastly over estimate your own importance to me if you think I care what you think or believe. I could not give a flying copulation about you in any way. I merely want to know what the arguments are so I can evaluate and improve my own positions.

Alas your arguments appear to be non existent and your position entirely unsubstantiated. So you have done little more than confirm my own position on this discussion is the correct one which I will therefore maintain.

JimiTime wrote: »

Its just too obvious for me.

I know I said this already but you really could be a philologos clone. His approach is always to call his position obvious and then run away too.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

The difference being, as always, no-one is forcing you to live life in their way. Your personal opinion, for which you have no basis beyond gut instinct, means that you think other people shouldn't get to live their life the way they want to. Lots of people had gut instinct feelings about desegregation, the decriminalization of homosexuality, the women's suffragette movement. They were wrong, and their instincts were wrong, just like yours are now

Again, you are welcome to that opinion, however off the mark it is. I don't mind the dodge allegations. I'm telling you to look for yourself, going forward, at what fathers and mothers do, and see if YOU can see commanalities. Me telling you what I see will just give you something to fight, or pick on the specifics of my observations and undermine them with things like, 'But can't a man put a plaster on your knee' etc, completely missing the point. The only way you will get any value from this, is to open your eyes, and look for yourself. You may conclude that you still disagree with what I'm saying, and if you've been honest, then fair enough.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

You may conclude that you still disagree with what I'm saying, and if you've been honest, then fair enough.

You managed to, unsurprisingly, miss the salient point of the post. Your "argument" (such as it is) dictates how other people live. Mine says other people should get to use their own judgement.

G.K.

Jimi, how has the message not got to you - we have 'looked for ourselves'. And some of us have done so pretty extensively. And we haven't found a difference. Telling us to look more won't help me get value from this process. And anyway, I'm not looking for value, I'm looking for an answer. If I can't think of any of these differences whose existence you continue to assert but then you won't say what they are when asked repeatedly you are either:

A) Winding us up

Afraid to debate, if your post saying posting the differences would 'give [us]something to pick at' is anything to go by.
C) Not actually in ownership of an argument based on anything more than your own sentiment

I don't wan't a moral lecture about getting value from anything. I don't give two hoots. What I do want is these differences you keep talking about but never say. If you fob me off with a moral lecture then you WILL have proven that you don't actually have an argument, and as such I won't need to listen to you any more.

I'd like to debate this subject, but it only works if you want to as well.

JimiTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have looked at it as much as I can given the furtive and secretive nature of people on your side of the fence. There is only so much research I can do on my own.

Research? You looking for papers or something? How about you look up papers on what fathers and mothers bring to the table, and then simply observe reality. People you know, if you are ever in playgrounds, draw from personal experience etc etc. Its not something you really need a lab, or scientific papers for.

However if your side of this discussion just keeps harping on the mantra that "differences exist" but simultaneously refuse to name a single one of them, then I am at a research dead end.

Tbh, men and women are different, is that in doubt? So is it really that hard to believe that differences exist in how they parent, as a general rule? Anyway, I'd suggest starting with simply observing the reality around you. real life scenarios.

I would also be forgive for reaching the conclusion I have reached.... which is that there IS nothing on that list for you to tell us. There are only so many times we can see this "I have the evidence but I will not be showing you it" canard before we start to realise you do not actually have the evidence at all and have just been, for want of a better word, lying.

What are your conclusions based on, if you don't mind me asking?

However even if you do, the fact you expect them to be so easily picked apart just tells me that even you do not have faith in the efficacy of your own arguments. If arguments are persuasive they will persuade me. Persuasive arguments always have.

If your arguments are poor or even false they yes, I admit quite openly I am likely to pick them apart so I can see why you are scared to give them. Again: Assuming they actually exist. Which I do not assume. Or believe.

Again, I don't mind this game of pressing me to crumble on my stance

I assure you though, I'm not afraid to give them. I just think it'll do you no good. In fact, it'll probably just make you convince yourself of your own stand even more.

Nor do I have any intention to try or desire to see it happen. I am not on forums like this to convert anyones position on anything. I am on forums like this to test my own positions for my own self to see if I need to alter, remove, improve or correct them.

So no, I am not asking for your evidence, arguments, data or reasonings for the purpose of attacking them and converting you. I am asking for them to see for myself what those arguments are and whether I should alter my own position because of them.

The problem is, is that you've already made a rather big leap IMO, once you've ignored the obvious fact that a father and a mother in general, offer different qualities. Again, the very fact that men and women are different should alert you to this.

You vastly over estimate your own importance to me if you think I care what you think or believe. I could not give a flying copulation about you in any way. I merely want to know what the arguments are so I can evaluate and improve my own positions.

Well its important to me that I don't give you a bigger shovel.

Alas your arguments appear to be non existent and your position entirely unsubstantiated. So you have done little more than confirm my own position on this discussion is the correct one which I will therefore maintain.

And thats your prerogative. I'm not aiming to convert you here. Just sow the seed, that maybe going forward you will answer the question yourself.

I know I said this already but you really could be a philologos clone. His approach is always to call his position obvious and then run away too.

I wish I had half of his patience and dedication. Whether he's right or he's wrong, he's exemplary. He's worth more than any other poster here.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

You managed to, unsurprisingly, miss the salient point of the post. Your "argument" (such as it is) dictates how other people live. Mine says other people should get to use their own judgement.

No, both our points deal with how children are raised, which is more important than the wants of people.

Links234

Hey Jimi, not to try and badger you or anything, but if you could reply to my post here, that would be great, 'cos I'm feeling left out

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

No, both our points deal with how children are raised, which is more important than the wants of people.

More dodging. With my position, people get to decide for themselves what is important. Your position is that you get to decide what is important, and tell other people how they are allowed live.

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Research? You looking for papers or something?

It is like you do not read my posts at all. I already told you. I have read books, papers and more yes. I have also talked to many people from your side of the issue, read blogs and forums and more. I have also... long before you suggested it.... observed the question myself from all my personal experience, friends and family and more.

As I said, I am not sure I can do any more than I have, especially if you people keep refusing to substantiate your own position behind a cloud of cop outs and dodges.

JimiTime wrote: »

How about you look up papers on what fathers and mothers bring to the table

Sure. How about you cite some then. I am always happy to read papers when they are cited to me.

JimiTime wrote: »

Tbh, men and women are different, is that in doubt? So is it really that hard to believe that differences exist in how they parent, as a general rule?

The discussion here is not about whether they are different. Clearly there are some differences. Women have a womb for example. The question IS whether there is any difference between the sexes that is relevant to the healthy and successful upbringing of children. So far no one except you on this thread can think of any.... and you just happen not to want to tell us what they are.

JimiTime wrote: »

What are your conclusions based on, if you don't mind me asking?

I do mind you asking for the simple reason that the post you quoted already answered. Simply read it again. Hint: Saying over and over you have something but refusing over and over to produce it normally leads people to conclude you are not being honest about having it in the first place. Kind of like that kid in school who tells everyone over and over about his great and sexy girlfriend, but just happens to cop out of any and all attempts to have him introduce her so people can meet her. Eventually people realise the girlfriend is very likely indeed not real.

JimiTime wrote: »

you've ignored the obvious fact that a father and a mother in general, offer different qualities. Again, the very fact that men and women are different should alert you to this.

Not agreeing with you is not the same as ignoring a fact. You have not established it IS a fact. You just declared that it is.

And again: The issue here is not that men and women are different. Of course they are. The issue is whether any of those differences are relevant to the successful upbringing of children in a way that means that a child having a "one man and one woman" configuration of parents is the "ideal" as your mantra keeps stating.

A Fiat Panda and an Audi A7 are "different". If the context of discussion however is getting you from A to B through a 30km speed limit zone then clearly their differences are not all that relevant to how successful the journey will be.

Similarly just because men and women are "different" this does not mean those differences have any relevance to parenting success. Context is everything here and simply stating that men and women are different and then running away adds nothing to the discussion.

JimiTime wrote: »

I wish I had half of his patience and dedication. Whether he's right or he's wrong, he's exemplary. He's worth more than any other poster here.

Then your standards are as low in quality as your evidence for this issue because for me a poster who just declared his position "Common sense" and "obvious" before running away is no worth a thing.

Sierra 117

JimiTime wrote: »

I wish I had half of his patience and dedication. Whether he's right or he's wrong, he's exemplary. He's worth more than any other poster here.

Yes, his patience and dedication towards throwing out statements as facts and refusing to back them up while simultaneously ignoring questions put to him is indeed exemplary. But don't feel bad, you and he are cut from the same cloth.

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

This just just plain dishonest Jimi. The studies you posted weren't just fobbed off, some one took the time to present arguments against them, which destroy any credibility they have.
If you think that the studies you don't like can be likewise destroyed, prove it. You can't just assume that they can be, then assume from that that they are invalid.

JimiTime wrote: »

...., then it becomes increasingly dubious to think that there is any study that could truly answer such questions.

Yet you think that your studies are good enough to prove that because they happen to back you up....

What are you basing this reasoning on? What evidence do you have to suggest that there can't be a good sample size.
Cause unless you can provide this evidence you are basing solely on your opinion, which you cannot honestly expect any of us to accept.

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe studies showing the importance of fathers, or the importance of mothers would be better equipped to answer the questions.

No, these would not be able to back up your stance. This is one of the claims Philologos made and ran away from instead of backing up.
Even if you had studies that proved that fathers and mothers provided unique benefits (which you're not going to do), this does not mean and cannot be use to conclude that both parents are required to have an equally beneficial effect.
The only way to do this is to compare gay and straight parents directly.
And they have done that.
And none of those studies agree with you.

But as you say, you don't care about reality, you're just relying on your own experiences to "make us think." And this is despite the fact that you aren't accepting other people subjective experiences in the same way.
And that's why you are being dishonest.

Onesimus

Why is this thread called ''the Gay megathread''? shouldn't it be called the homosexual mega thread instead?

PDN

Onesimus wrote: »

Why is this thread called ''the Gay megathread''? shouldn't it be called the homosexual mega thread instead?

Which reminds me of the wonderful (and true) story about the American Olympian, Tyson Homosexual: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/tyson-gay-becomes-tyson-homosexual-1229134

JimiTime

Links234 wrote: »

but we already have generations of children raised by lesbian gay bisexual and transgender parents,

The fact that allegedly only 2.8% of men and 1.7% of women identify as homosexual, and that the percentage of these who are parenting is greatly lower, would tell me that there is certainly not enough to make any conclusive statements about.

the problem is that those families are not legally recognised. we already know the consequences of the lack of adoption rights, why should some vague warning of possible "consequences" trump that?

Because the rights and welfare of children are more important than the desires and wants of a group of people.

we have children of LGBT couples who have one parent that is not legally recognized, so what if something happens to the other parent?

To be harsh about it, the parent knows the scenario before they bring the child into the world. So if its such a big deal, why bring the child into the world knowing this? Bannishide allegedly got her case sorted, so I assume there is a mechanism in place to sort it out. The idea that because of these rather rare cases, we should open the floor up to gay adoption of all kinds is rather flawed as I see it. The question is bigger than these rare cases, in that it needs to be established that fathers or mothers are completely inconsequential to a child. Hard cases make bad law as they say, and taking each case on merit is the way I would rather see it. Currently there is legislation to adopt as a single person in Ireland if its deemed its best for the child. It is my understanding that this exists to allow, for an example an orphaned child, to be adopted by a relative etc.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Which reminds me of the wonderful (and true) story about the American Olympian, Tyson Homosexual: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/tyson-gay-becomes-tyson-homosexual-1229134

Ha ha. I completely forgot about that. Brilliant:D

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

Yet you think that your studies are good enough to prove that because they happen to back you up....

Actually no I don't. If you delve back into the my posts (I really wouldn't bother) you'll see I don't really desire to engage in study wars, including ones that allegedly back me up. I give them little creedence, I merely linked to those in response to people hassling about 'The Facts' (meaning things that studies have concluded). Even when I posted them, I said that there'll probably be another one debunking it, and then another debunking that etc. I'd rather people used their own heads on the matter. Its not like its a mystery to us all. Most of us witness mums and dads everywhere.

JimiTime

Sierra 117 wrote: »

But don't feel bad, you and he are cut from the same cloth.

Again, I would not muddy his name with mine. His decorum is beyond reproach. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he is an exemplary poster that we all could learn from in terms of manners.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually no I don't. If you delve back into the my posts (I really wouldn't bother) you'll see I don't really desire to engage in study wars, including ones that allegedly back me up. I give them little creedence, I merely linked to those in response to people hassling about 'The Facts' (meaning things that studies have concluded). Even when I posted them, I said that there'll probably be another one debunking it, and then another debunking that etc. I'd rather people used their own heads on the matter. Its not like its a mystery to us all. Most of us witness mums and dads everywhere.

We do witness dads and mums everywhere JimiTime and when we think about what we witness and don't come to the conclusions you do you just say we hav'nt thought enough.

JimiTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is like you do not read my posts at all. I already told you. I have read books, papers and more yes. I have also talked to many people from your side of the issue, read blogs and forums and more. I have also... long before you suggested it.... observed the question myself from all my personal experience, friends and family and more.

If what you say is true, and you have honestly looked, then thats that. I've nothing more to give you. If you observe the reality of mums and dads, and conclude that fathers and mothers are inconsequential, then there is really nothing I can say that will convince. Maybe someone will conduct a study someday that you will be able to trust for at least a while, until the one debunking it follows

Honestly though, you are right, I've got nothing more. Others might, but I don't. Nothing that will be of any value anyway.

G.K.

JimiTime wrote: »

The fact that allegedly only 2.8% of men and 1.7% of women identify as homosexual, and that the percentage of these who are parenting is greatly lower, would tell me that there is certainly not enough to make any conclusive statements about.

I don't know if you're only talking about Ireland but if you are talking about a worldwide figure then that's still a huge number.

JimiTime wrote: »

Because the rights and welfare of children are more important than the desires and wants of a group of people.

That's my viewpoint - children have a right to a stable, loving and caring household with good parenting. This is more important than the desires and wants of certain groups who wish to disadvantage or block same-sex couples entirely because they believe such couples are somehow inferior to the optimum family unit.

I realise that's not what you are getting at but as you keep forcing the unsubstantiated claim that a mother and father = optimum I thought i'd have my say.

JimiTime wrote: »

To be harsh about it, the parent knows the scenario before they bring the child into the world. So if its such a big deal, why bring the child into the world knowing this? Bannishide allegedly got her case sorted, so I assume there is a mechanism in place to sort it out.

That doesn't mean that the system shouldn't be changed. While I'm a supporter of Gay Marriage, what concerns me more (Or would if I were Irish) is the current legal inequality between Civil Partnerships and Marriages. Folks like Bannasidhe should not have to go through the 'mechanism' to get the support they should be entitled to simply by having their relationship recognised legally.

JimiTime wrote: »

The idea that because of these rather rare cases, we should open the floor up to gay adoption of all kinds is rather flawed as I see it. The question is bigger than these rare cases, in that it needs to be established that fathers or mothers are completely inconsequential to a child. Hard cases make bad law as they say, and taking each case on merit is the way I would rather see it. Currently there is legislation to adopt as a single person in Ireland if its deemed its best for the child. It is my understanding that this exists to allow, for an example an orphaned child, to be adopted by a relative etc.

When you say rare cases, what do you mean here?

But what's best for the cildren comes first, done on a case by case basis, I agree, and the sexual orientation of prospective adopters should not on its own disadvantage their chances.

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually no I don't. If you delve back into the my posts (I really wouldn't bother) you'll see I don't really desire to engage in study wars, including ones that allegedly back me up. I give them little creedence, I merely linked to those in response to people hassling about 'The Facts' (meaning things that studies have concluded).

Why don't you give credence to studies? Do you not consider them reliable?

JimiTime wrote: »

Even when I posted them, I said that there'll probably be another one debunking it, and then another debunking that etc.

On this issue the studies have largely come to a consensus - that same-sex parenting is not inherantly 'inferior' to parenting offered by a married mixed-sex couple. The only studies that have been presented as 'debunking' the consensus have been ripped apart by oldrnwisr.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd rather people used their own heads on the matter. Its not like its a mystery to us all. Most of us witness mums and dads everywhere.

As we continually tell you, we have used our heads. Just because we haven't come to your conclusion doesn't mean we haven't thought about it.

And can you cut out the patronising undertone? Your posts seem to portray your viewpoint as though "it's really obvious if people just _think_", and you are ignoring everything that we said to you.

JimiTime

marienbad wrote: »

We do witness dads and mums everywhere JimiTime and when we think about what we witness and don't come to the conclusions you do you just say we hav'nt thought enough.

Have I? I think you'll find I said if you honestly have done what I said, or do it going forward, and still arrive at your same conclusion then fair enough, we'll be in disagreement about fathers and mothers are inconsequential in the raising of a child.

yawha

Hi Jimi,

Would you consider a man who had traditionally feminine interests and behaviours to be an inherently bad suboptimal father?

JimiTime

G.K. wrote: »

And can you cut out the patronising undertone? Your posts seem to portray your viewpoint as though "it's really obvious if people just _think_", and you are ignoring everything that we said to you.

I'm off to bed now, but just to clarify, I can't really stop whatever undertone is present without being dishonest. Its patronising because, and I hope you appreciate the honesty, that I can't help but feel how ridiculous that its even a question.

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually no I don't. If you delve back into the my posts (I really wouldn't bother) you'll see I don't really desire to engage in study wars, including ones that allegedly back me up. I give them little creedence, I merely linked to those in response to people hassling about 'The Facts' (meaning things that studies have concluded). Even when I posted them, I said that there'll probably be another one debunking it, and then another debunking that etc.

But there's posts actually debunking those specific studies you posted. We've posted a great deal of studies that don't argee with you which have yet to be debunked, let alone addressed in the first place.

And I would not engage in a study war if I were in your position either, what with not having any actual ammunition.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd rather people used their own heads on the matter. Its not like its a mystery to us all. Most of us witness mums and dads everywhere.

But you are being provided with anecdotes and examples that destroy your point. We have people who have parents totally different to each others, we have actual gay parents and children of gay parents.
All of them disargee with you.

So why do you reject all of that when we should take what you provide (with is exactly the same) as true?

If only we had a way to analyse all these testimonies in a way as to provide a large, representative example of the people involved in the issue and exclude confounding factors like statistical anomalies or personal biases....
Oh, wait, we have them.
They are called scientific studies, we've done them and they don't agree with you.

Telling us to ignore them, then ignore the testimonies you don't like
and only accept your unsupported opinions is not getting us to think, it's precisely the opposite.

ShooterSF

Ok so once again any reason, given your belief about what different genders bring to upbringing, you oppose polyamorous marriage assuming a mix of genders is required?

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

If what you say is true, and you have honestly looked, then thats that. I've nothing more to give you. If you observe the reality of mums and dads, and conclude that fathers and mothers are inconsequential

I do not remember saying parents of any type are "inconsequential". My position is that I can not think of a single attribute of males and females that is different between the two and is relevant to the successful nurturing and upbringing of a child.

You keep claiming you know some, but conveniently have a long list of excuses as to why you will not list any of them. That, as I said, I find rather suspect. It is likely you simply do not have such a list and are only pretending you do.

JimiTime wrote: »

I've got nothing more.

A sentence that appears to be exactly one word too long.