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; } } }

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

JimiTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not remember saying parents of any type are "inconsequential".

Really? Is that not what is implied when we say that a child doesn't need a mother if he has two 'fathers' and vice versa?

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

No, you've said that you've read the papers, books, looked at your own family, observed others etc and have concluded what you have. I can give you nothing more than all that. If you have honestly looked as you say you have, and have arrived at your conclusion, then nothing I say will have any bearing or value.

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Really? Is that not what is implied when we say that a child doesn't need a mother if he has two 'fathers' and vice versa?

There is a difference between saying parents themselves are "inconsequential" and saying that the sex of those parents are "inconsequential". Clearly no one here is debating that having parents/guardians is a good thing.

JimiTime wrote: »

No, you've said that you've read the papers, books, looked at your own family, observed others etc and have concluded what you have. I can give you nothing more than all that. If you have honestly looked as you say you have, and have arrived at your conclusion, then nothing I say will have any bearing or value.

Because you have nothing of bearing or value to say. Funny how you start this paragraph with "No," and then proceed to agree with my position entirely in everything following it.

If you have something to give then give it. If not then lets stop pretending you have and that you are just sitting on it.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Then we are in dis-agreemnt Jimi- my experience is looking at fathers and mothers over then last 50 years and I have seen quite a few I would'nt give them a pet to care for never mind a child.

It might be politically incorrect to say it but a significant number of pregnancies are unplanned whereas an adoption is rarely or ever so and by definition those potential parents really do want to care for a child and have given it considerable thought.

And if the mantra of ''what is best for the child'' were truly applied there would be no parents denied on religious or sexual orientation grounds.

By the way are you saying that a married couple that meets the minimum standard should have precedence over a gay couple that meets a higher standard ?

Bannasidhe

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.

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

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.

What on Earth are you implying?

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

the feelings you had in terms of maybe running to mummy with a cut knee

doctoremma wrote: »

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?....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?

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Undermined your observation, yes. Missed the point, how?

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Bannishide allegedly got her case sorted, so I assume there is a mechanism in place to sort it out.

Mechanism = Bannasidhe didn't die while son was still a legal minor.

Seems some people this is an adequate mechanism for protecting the children of same-sex couples. After all, people shouldn't have children if they are going to up and die.

JimiTime

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is a difference between saying parents themselves are "inconsequential" and saying that the sex of those parents are "inconsequential". Clearly no one here is debating that having parents/guardians is a good thing.

If you say that two 'mothers', or two 'fathers' are just as good as a mother and a father, then you are saying that a father is not required, meaning a father is inconsequential, and that a mother is not required, meaning a mother is inconsequential.

Because you have nothing of bearing or value to say. Funny how you start this paragraph with "No," and then proceed to agree with my position entirely in everything following it.

If you have something to give then give it. If not then lets stop pretending you have and that you are just sitting on it.

I'm not sitting on anything of value, I've told you this already. I'm not pretending anything. I've just let you know that if you have honestly done what you claimed you have, then we disagree with each other on the value and differences fathers and mothers bring to parenting. Men and women are different, not just in the willy department. Oestrogen, Testosterone, etc etc sets them up, in general, as handling emotions etc differently. I thought this was something everyone knew, but hey ho. To think that this doesn't mean they, in general, parent differently, IMO, is denying the obvious.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again not quite what I am saying. I will repeat myself for you for the 10th time I think.

There are a list of things that make for a healthy and successful and ideal upbringing for a child. Food, education, love, security, stability, protection, discipline.... the list goes on and I am sure you could add a few things yourself.

My position is simply that the things on that list can be just as well provided by a single parent as by a straight couple as by a gay couple or as by any other relationship such as the user who posts around boards that has a daughter and is living with two women.

My question, the one you are engaged in verbal acrobatics to avoid is what you feel from that list somehow can not be provided for as well by all the parental configurations except the one you would arbitrarily define as "The Ideal".... and why.

The "pretending" you are doing in my suspicion is that you have an answer to that question.... but you are not giving it for some makey up reason such as you feel we should answer it ourselves.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What on Earth are you implying?

Mechanism = Bannasidhe didn't die while son was still a legal minor.

Sorry, I thought you got it sorted legally, but were lamenting what you had to go through to get it done? Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick.

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Men and women are different, not just in the willy department. Oestrogen, Testosterone, etc etc sets them up, in general, as handling emotions etc differently. I thought this was something everyone knew, but hey ho. To think that this doesn't mean they, in general, parent differently, IMO, is denying the obvious.

Okay, so if a man and a male-to-female transsexual wanted to raise a child, that would be fine? I mean, the mtf transsexual would be undergoing hormone replacement treatment which would give her more oestrogen and stop producing as much testosterone. Would you be okay with that? The child would have a mother and father (not biologically, but would still meet your "nuclear family" criteria), the hormone issue is taken care of with HRT. So... that'd be fine, wouldn't it?

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

If you say that two 'mothers', or two 'fathers' are just as good as a mother and a father, then you are saying that a father is not required, meaning a father is inconsequential, and that a mother is not required, meaning a mother is inconsequential.

Actually, I'm going to go out on a limb here (although I don't think it's too much of a danger) and say that I think this is correct. A mother isn't a required part of the parental configuration, therefore a mother is inconsequential. The fact - and it IS fact - that one man or two men can raise a perfectly happy and well-rounded individual demonstrates this.

Now, when I say "a mother is inconsequential", I am not saying that the characteristics that a "stereotypical mother" embodies are inconsequential. I just don't see that those characteristics have to belong to a female parental figure.

JimiTime wrote: »

Oestrogen, Testosterone, etc etc sets them up, in general, as handling emotions etc differently. I thought this was something everyone knew, but hey ho. To think that this doesn't mean they, in general, parent differently, IMO, is denying the obvious.

This is very easily refuted and every single one of us will be able to do it to some extent. My emotional response to various situations has often been compared to the "typically male response" (to stereotype). I can think of at least one man close to me whose behaviour could be labelled "stereotypically female".

You speak "in general", that is to say that males and females have, on average, different emotional responses and behaviour patterns; this may well be true. It not true for every male and for every female though, and it is not consistent within each individual. I'd argue that the production of such stereotypes is as much (if not more) a product of gender stereotyping in society than of biological differences.

Even by your own admission (dealing only in generalities), not everyone falls into a gender stereotype. Thus, any argument based solely on gender stereotype in null and void.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you got it sorted legally, but were lamenting what you had to go through to get it done? Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick.

I was explaining the legal hoops same-sex parents have to go through to try and ensure their child could remain with the parent they know, live with and who cares for them, in the event that the biological parent dies.

'Try' being the operative word as legally the non-biological parent is a legal stranger meaning the courts can and do remove the child. Ironically, once the biological parent is dead, the non-biological parent can apply to adopt the child. Given that they have an existing relationship such an application would be looked upon favourably. This is an utterly nonsensical situation.

Why cause unnecessary worry for couples by denying one the right to adopt his/her partner's biological children (something that is available to heterosexual married couples) but should the worse happen allow the surviving partner to then adopt?

Can you imagine the outcry if heterosexual step-parents were forced to apply to adopt 'their' children in the event of the biological parent dying? Yet, this is what same-sex couple face, with no guarantee of success.

Children can be removed from the home they know, loose both parents and be sent to live with blood relations they don't know - or placed in foster care. All because the State treats some citizens unequally.

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

If you say that two 'mothers', or two 'fathers' are just as good as a mother and a father, then you are saying that a father is not required, meaning a father is inconsequential, and that a mother is not required, meaning a mother is inconsequential.

I'm not sitting on anything of value, I've told you this already. I'm not pretending anything. I've just let you know that if you have honestly done what you claimed you have, then we disagree with each other on the value and differences fathers and mothers bring to parenting. Men and women are different, not just in the willy department. Oestrogen, Testosterone, etc etc sets them up, in general, as handling emotions etc differently. I thought this was something everyone knew, but hey ho. To think that this doesn't mean they, in general, parent differently, IMO, is denying the obvious.

What specifically can mothers do that fathers cannot? What can fathers do that mothers cannot?
Further, if there is something that is exclusive to one gender or the other, how then can gay parents be at all successful in anyway, like you've been forced to admit?

In all of our different experiences none of us can actually find one example of anything required of a parent that one gender and one gender only is capable of.
You are rejecting this while at the same time asking us to believe that your experience should be accepted as fact.

Either provide some examples and back them up with something less discredited and unreliable than you own opinion, or drop this dishonest point.

doctoremma

A corollary of this current train of thought is that the rather startling realisation that some people still feel that stereotyping genders is the right thing to do. It's depressing both for society and for the individuals themselves - why would anyone want to box themselves in such a narrow way to limit how they might interact with their spouses and their children? The thought of me having to behave, having to respond and being judged by others according to my gender rather than my personality is baffling.

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

A corollary of this current train of thought is that the rather startling realisation that some people still feel that stereotyping genders is the right thing to do. It's depressing both for society and for the individuals themselves - why would anyone want to box themselves in such a narrow way to limit how they might interact with their spouses and their children? The thought of me having to behave, having to respond and being judged by others according to my gender rather than my personality is baffling.

Arn't we all glad that Katie Taylor and her father have no time for that kind of nonsense.

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

The fact - and it IS fact - that one man or two men can raise a perfectly happy and well-rounded individual demonstrates this.

Define happy and well rounded?

Now, when I say "a mother is inconsequential", I am not saying that the characteristics that a "stereotypical mother" embodies are inconsequential. I just don't see that those characteristics have to belong to a female parental figure.

Ok, so what you are saying, is that there IS a difference, and a value that a mother brings to parenting, that is in general, not the same as what a father brings. BUT that it is possible for a man to have these traits. Have I got that right?

This is very easily refuted and every single one of us will be able to do it to some extent. My emotional response to various situations has often been compared to the "typically male response" (to stereotype). I can think of at least one man close to me whose behaviour could be labelled "stereotypically female".

the thing is, no matter how many exceptions you can cite, we know that in general, women and men differ. When you observe mothers playing with their kids in general, its a lot different to when you see men do it. When you see in general, a childs reaction to the tone of his fathers voice compared to the tone their mothers voice.

I would suggest, if people really want to study at the differences, and can't see them for themselves, that they look to studies not sullied by pro or anti LGBT. Look to reasearch into the the role offered by fathers etc.

You speak "in general", that is to say that males and females have, on average, different emotional responses and behaviour patterns; this may well be true. It not true for every male and for every female though, and it is not consistent within each individual. I'd argue that the production of such stereotypes is as much (if not more) a product of gender stereotyping in society than of biological differences.

That may be true of the kind of things you referred to earlier in terms of daddy the breadwinner and disciplinarian, and mammy the cook and soft touch etc. These are more societal gender roles, the evolution of which was probably based on both patriarchy and also on playing to the strengths of the genders (And no, I'm not saying women should do the cooking

). However, I'll give you a simple example in terms of how mothers and fathers in general naturally play with their kids. I brought this question up with my wife last night, telling her that there is a rather large contingent of the boards faithful consider us to be inconsequential in terms of me being a man and her being a woman. After laughing a bit, she just said,
'Even how you and *named a few of our friends with kids* play with the kids is completely different. The way you all rough-house, and throw the kids about and compete with them. Are these people blind to playground antics? Watching as dads are getting their children to be more daring, while mothers are wincing onlookers. They don't see that as valuable? They don't see that common contrast? Or is it that they don't see its value?'
I replied, that the answers given would likely be, 'but sure a man can be a wincing onlooker, and a woman encouraging the more daring'.
She replied, 'Then why is it that you don't see it then?'
'its the exception?' I replied.
'An exception I've never seen, and certainly no argument to say that women and men are interchangeable!'
'Men have willies, but look, we found some men with no willy, so now we must question if men have willy's? I think not! Exceptions don't make the rule. People will obviously see what they want to see. Its obvious for years, but someone now wants to show how little value fathers and mothers have in contrast to each other, and those wanting to believe it to be the case shut off their brains and pretend theres no real difference. Why the hell are you wasting your time with this type of nonsense? Come watch the Bourne Supremacy'.

I 100% agree with her of course. On just that topic, if you go to a playground and listen to the parents. Fathers will be encouraging the children to come out of the comfort zone more. Climb a little higher, Throw them where angels only thread, ride their bike a bit faster etc. Fathers tend to encourage children to take chances and push limits where mothers protect and are more cautious. And while at times this difference can cause disagreement between father and mother on what is best for the child, the contrast is great for the children. Either of these parenting styles by themselves are not giving the child the best balance.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Arn't we all glad that Katie Taylor and her father have no time for that kind of nonsense.

Topical. Very good:) You reckon she'd be the athlete she is now without a father?

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Topical. Very good:) You reckon she'd be the athlete she is now without a father?

Given that she has a natural ability. Yes.

The fact that her father was a boxer himself would be a more significant influence imho.

Are you saying a woman boxer wouldn't have been able to provide the same encouragement and support?

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

A corollary of this current train of thought is that the rather startling realisation that some people still feel that stereotyping genders is the right thing to do. It's depressing both for society and for the individuals themselves - why would anyone want to box themselves in such a narrow way to limit how they might interact with their spouses and their children? The thought of me having to behave, having to respond and being judged by others according to my gender rather than my personality is baffling.

Actually, what YOU are encouraging is exactly that. I'm saying it happens naturally but not to indendical proportions between the genders. Its not about you HAVING to behave in certain ways, in general, we already do. If you were to try create the balance in a same sex household then THAT is where you would need to look at what mothers and fathers provide and try to encompass it all in their parenting, hoping that you are getting it right.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that she has a natural ability. Yes.

The fact that her father was a boxer himself would be a more significant influence imho.

Are you saying a woman boxer wouldn't have been able to provide the same encouragement and support?

TBH, it was just me being as flippant as yerself. Its a non argument really

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

Topical. Very good:) You reckon she'd be the athlete she is now without a father?

.....what nonsense is this? Marvin Hagler was raised by his mother, as was Thomas Hearns and jaysus knows how many other boxers.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, what YOU are encouraging is exactly that. I'm saying it happens naturally but not to indendical proportions between the genders. Its not about you HAVING to behave in certain ways, in general, we already do. If you were to try create the balance in a same sex household then THAT is where you would need to look at what mothers and fathers provide and try to encompass it all in their parenting, hoping that you are getting it right.

Jimi - you know full well all parent's with an ounce of sense are hoping to get it right.

Some parent's are introverted, some extroverts; some are sporty, some don't even pretend to be interested in sport; some love to cook, some can barely boil water; some are there with the first aid kit at the hint of 'all fall down', other's go for 'the stick it under a cold tap' approach; some are there to help (and nag) with the homework, some haven't read a book since they left school (some didn't read in school) - some never get their faces out of a book; some are computer literate, some can barely turn the TV on; some just want their child to be 'happy', some want their child to be a 'success'. Some care so mush it hurts -sadly some just don't seem to care at all.

None of these things are gender specific. Male or female decent parents will do the best they can. Male or female crap parents will still be crap.

yawha

JimiTime wrote: »

Topical. Very good:) You reckon she'd be the athlete she is now without a father?

She could very well have had an encouraging boxer mother.

Perhaps some day she will be that mother.

A pity her child will have a suboptimal upbringing as a result.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jimi - you know full well all parent's with an ounce of sense are hoping to get it right.

You missed the context.

JimiTime

yawha wrote: »

She could very well have had an encouraging boxer mother.

Perhaps some day she will be that mother.

A pity her child will have a suboptimal upbringing as a result.

Nodin wrote: »

.....what nonsense is this? Marvin Hagler was raised by his mother, as was Thomas Hearns and jaysus knows how many other boxers.

You obviously missed my follow up post

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

I 100% agree with her of course. On just that topic, if you go to a playground and listen to the parents. Fathers will be encouraging the children to come out of the comfort zone more. Climb a little higher, Throw them where angels only thread, ride their bike a bit faster etc. Fathers tend to encourage children to take chances and push limits where mothers protect and are more cautious. And while at times this difference can cause disagreement between father and mother on what is best for the child, the contrast is great for the children. Either of these parenting styles by themselves are not giving the child the best balance.

So even if this claim is true (which none of us are actually going to buy without support/), why can't one gender take over the other's supposed role?
Why can't there be one cautious father and one boisterous one?

And notice how you've been forced to say "tend to"? That shows you know as well as we do that your claim is not an absolute and those roles are not gender specific. Nor are either specifically required to be spilt into both parents.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

I would suggest, if people really want to study at the differences, and can't see them for themselves, that they look to studies not sullied by pro or anti LGBT. Look to reasearch into the the role offered by fathers etc.

Like the totally discredited and/or irrelevant studies you posted? Here's (yet another) crazy idea: why don't you post these "non-biased" studies for us to see.

JimiTime wrote: »

I replied, that the answers given would likely be, 'but sure a man can be a wincing onlooker, and a woman encouraging the more daring'.
She replied, 'Then why is it that you don't see it then?'
'its the exception?' I replied.
'An exception I've never seen, and certainly no argument to say that women and men are interchangeable!'

Wow, finally some actual arguments. It's a miracle. Shame you had to credit them to your wife instead of just coming out and saying they are your arguments. And unsurprisingly, they're utter nonsense. Which you well know, or you would have posted them about 400 posts ago. It's no surprise you don't see it, they don't exist in your worldview. Any time you do see it, it's "an exception" and can be dismissed. Talk about confirmation bias

Of course, your inevitable reply will be "Told you. I knew my arguments would be dismissed without consideration, that's why I didn't post them for 400 posts" (why did you change your mind by the way? I thought you were sticking to your guns and not posting them?). Newsflash: they're not being dismissed without consideration. They're being dismissed because they have no merit

Sonics2k

JimiTime wrote: »

I 100% agree with her of course. On just that topic, if you go to a playground and listen to the parents. Fathers will be encouraging the children to come out of the comfort zone more. Climb a little higher, Throw them where angels only thread, ride their bike a bit faster etc. Fathers tend to encourage children to take chances and push limits where mothers protect and are more cautious. And while at times this difference can cause disagreement between father and mother on what is best for the child, the contrast is great for the children. Either of these parenting styles by themselves are not giving the child the best balance.

I'm sorry, but that is single handedly one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. You do realize that not all men are like all other men and the same with women, right?

I'm immensely protective of my children in the park and places because I'm terrified one of them will get hurt badly. Their mother and grandmothers on other hand is quite happy for both of them to climb as much as they want, jump around on slides and get all kinds of bumps.
Meanwhile I'm standing at the side of the slide ready to pounce like a cat in the slightest off-chance they fall.

JimiTime

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that is single handedly one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. You do realize that not all men are like all other men and the same with women, right?

I do, but the commonalities are astoundingly, well common.

I'm immensely protective of my children in the park and places because I'm terrified one of them will get hurt badly. Their mother and grandmothers on other hand is quite happy for both of them to climb as much as they want, jump around on slides and get all kinds of bumps.
Meanwhile I'm standing at the side of the slide ready to pounce like a cat in the slightest off-chance they fall.

Maybe this could be to do with the fact you had no father as an example to you? Something to consider. Are you perhaps showing the difference a father makes?

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Like the totally discredited and/or irrelevant studies you posted? Here's (yet another) crazy idea: why don't you post these "non-biased" studies for us to see.

Wow, finally some actual arguments. It's a miracle. Shame you had to credit them to your wife instead of just coming out and saying they are your arguments. And unsurprisingly, they're utter nonsense. Which you well know, or you would have posted them about 400 posts ago. It's no surprise you don't see it, they don't exist in your worldview. Any time you do see it, it's "an exception" and can be dismissed. Talk about confirmation bias

Of course, your inevitable reply will be "Told you. I knew my arguments would be dismissed without consideration, that's why I didn't post them for 400 posts" (why did you change your mind by the way? I thought you were sticking to your guns and not posting them?). Newsflash: they're not being dismissed without consideration. They're being dismissed because they have no merit

fair enough, you believe that this small example is without merit. I'd recommend you be more observant in the future.