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

JimiTime wrote: »

Waffling about? Sometimes I really don't think you're taking this seriously KM.:)

No, I don't take you seriously. I am using you as an example of how dishonest your position is. You are doing a wonderful job.

JimiTime wrote: »

Studies are not my refuge, that your bag. I've just told you what kind of thing to look for. The study whores know where to look, so just look. I'm sure if you wanted to find a study that was going to show boards how right you were, you'd find it in seconds flat.

So you won't provide the studies you are talking about?
Shocking...

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, if it is established in you, that fathers and mothers are important, then it automatically implies that the mother/father dynamic is whats best. Simples.

No it does not automatically imply that.
The only way to establish that is to directly compare gay and straight parents.

The studies if they exist and say what you claim they do (which is doubtful) can only say how the genders are different. They cannot however say which of differences are essential or more beneficial.

Again, feel free to actually point out these differences and explain how the are essential.

JimiTime wrote: »

Secondly, to believe that there is enough of a demographic in the same sex parenting arena to make a study statistically relevant is absurd. Not only that, but there are so many different same sex dynamics, that it makes their reliability even less again.

And I asked you what you were using to conclude this. You have not provided anything to support it beyond your own clearly uninformed, biased and ill-educated opinion.
I can insist the exact opposite based solely on my opinion.
So how do we know who's right? How could I be wrong and you be right?
Would you just accept my opinion as fact? How can you expect other people to just accept yours (especially since you are incapable of being honest)?

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm liking the up front aggression. Nothing worse than passive aggression. If theres a fire in yer belly, get it out! After all, we are emotional beings. No point in being sterile just for the sake of it. Let the passion flow! So in response to your above question, Only if you stop being a moron. Deal?

I'm not being aggressive, I'm stating facts that I can back up.
Your posts now are becoming even more childish on top of dishonest and underhanded.

Of course, if you just grew up and addressed my points maybe you wouldn't have to resort to dishonest tactics, and now name-calling.

ShooterSF wrote: »

As long as you mean you plural in "you can believe" I'd be happy. Actually I'd say it's the most honest factual post I'd ever seen you make since I started using boards; So more than happy, yeah.

Great!

King Mob wrote: »

Again, even if you could provide these studies you are waffling about (you won't)

Waffling about? Sometimes I really don't think you're taking this seriously KM.:)

Studies are not my refuge, that your bag. I've just told you what kind of thing to look for. The study whores know where to look, so just look. I'm sure if you wanted to find a study that was going to show boards how right you were, you'd find it in seconds flat.

we are still left with the fact that these studies do not say anything about gay parents.
They do not study them so there is no possible way for them conclude anything about them. You are claiming that they conclude something they can't.

Firstly, if it is established in you, that fathers and mothers are important, then it automatically implies that the mother/father dynamic is whats best. Simples.
Secondly, to believe that there is enough of a demographic in the same sex parenting arena to make a study statistically relevant is absurd. Not only that, but there are so many different same sex dynamics, that it makes their reliability even less again.

Stop lying Jimi. It's not helping you. It's just showing how underhanded and dishonest you have to be to hold your position.

I'm liking the up front aggression. Nothing worse than passive aggression. If theres a fire in yer belly, get it out! After all, we are emotional beings. No point in being sterile just for the sake of it. Let the passion flow! So in response to your above question, Only if you stop being a moron. Deal?

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, then let me ammend my last post then. I'll continue pretending that the questions you and MDSL propose will lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes, and you can believe I'm just afraid of showing that I'm being hypocritical, logically flawed and covering up my true religion based wotsits. That better?:)

As long as you mean you plural in "you can believe" I'd be happy. Actually I'd say it's the most honest factual post I'd ever seen you make since I started using boards; So more than happy, yeah.

JimiTime wrote: »

So after these types of things have been established, then King Mobs pet question can then be addressed in terms of if you think these parenting styles etc are actually of any consequence.

Again, even if you could provide these studies you are waffling about (you won't) and show how they conclude that there are differences (you won't) and then show how they aren't tainted like all of the studies you reject out of hand (you won't), we are still left with the fact that these studies do not say anything about gay parents.
They do not study them so there is no possible way for them conclude anything about them. You are claiming that they conclude something they can't.

Stop lying Jimi. It's not helping you. It's just showing how underhanded and dishonest you have to be to hold your position.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sorry did I suggest those questions have you stumped? I don't believe they do. Actually I'm certain you know your answer to both questions and so do I. This issue is not them having you stumped it's publicly answering them would show up your argument against gay marriage as hypocritical, logically flawed and further suggest that it is simply a screen to cover your true religion-based reason for not agreeing with it.

Ok, then let me ammend my last post then. I'll continue pretending that the questions you and MDSL propose will lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes, and you can believe I'm just afraid of showing that I'm being hypocritical, logically flawed and covering up my true religion based wotsits. That better?:)

NuMarvel wrote: »

But you're not prepared to debate the topic of adoption. You haven't given any credible reasons as to why opposite sex couples should be given preference.

If you want to have that debate, the floor is yours.

Yes I have. I've told you that a father and a mother differ in parenting, and give a complimentary balance in child rearing. That men and women's intrinsic differences are not irrelevant or inconsequential when it translates into mothering and fathering. What I have NOT done, is spoonfed you these differences, though I've alluded to some, as I believe anyone who does not accept these differences is influenced by political ideologies rather than seeking the truth of the matter. I've advised you all to look for yourselves, and if required, look to studies not sullied by political agenda's, be they pro or anti. These would be studies into father and mother differences and their value etc. Like in real life scenarios, if someone is simply looking at the parenting etc, they don't feel any outside or political pressures. However, introduce a fear of being called a bigot etc, or being ostracised etc, and all of a sudden you are entering a situation that may not be so trustworthy.

So after these types of things have been established, then King Mobs pet question can then be addressed in terms of if you think these parenting styles etc are actually of any consequence. And again, if you do all this honestly, the answer you will find, even if it affirms what you already believe, will be more valuable than pages of arguing here. So as I said, I wont be the one handing you bigger shovels. Just look for yourselves, and see if you truly believe that mothers and fathers are inconsequential.

What makes it even worse again is that he's basing it on his observations of a completely different group of people.

It's akin to me thinking bus drivers make good drivers, based on nothing more that just my own, limited, observations, and then "logically" assuming that taxi drivers must be inferior drivers, even though I've (hypothetically) never seen a taxi driver in action.

Sometimes knowing how something works, i.e. the differences in mothers and fathers parenting, and childrens reactions to them, will inform you enough to see that children will be deprived without one or the other. Knowing that the mother and father dynamic works, and that the differences add to the childs experience, and also that it can only be of benefit to have both a female and male role model raise you is enough to confidently say that skewing this dynamic is less than the ideal. So for the sake of children, who don't have a say in the matter, they should be given the chance of having a mother and father rare them, rather than becoming guinea pigs in a social experiment at the behest of a political lobby group.

JimiTime wrote: »

Deal. I'll keep pretending it'll lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes, and you can keep believing its a humdinger thats got me stumped. See, everyone's happy.:)

Sorry did I suggest those questions have you stumped? I don't believe they do. Actually I'm certain you know your answer to both questions and so do I. This issue is not them having you stumped it's publicly answering them would show up your argument against gay marriage as hypocritical, logically flawed and further suggest that it is simply a screen to cover your true religion-based reason for not agreeing with it.

JimiTime wrote: »

Deal. I'll keep pretending it'll lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes, and you can keep believing its a humdinger thats got me stumped. See, everyone's happy.:)

At least you're being honest about your childish, dishonest tactics now.
Saves us the slight effort of showing them to be.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

Deal. I'll keep pretending it'll lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes, and you can keep believing its a humdinger thats got me stumped. See, everyone's happy.:)

You could just explain why you believe they're irrelevant. But that would be too much like a discussion I guess. Instead we'll get "There's no point me telling you why they're irrelevant. You just have to look around you and then you'll be able to see why they're irrelevant"

ShooterSF wrote: »

Their relevance has to do with how consistent you are with your beliefs when they'd either allow for all forms of discrimination (in MadsL's case) or when they should contradict your religious beliefs (in mine) but go ahead and continue pretending you won't answer because it'll lead down "irrelevant rabbit holes" rather than publicly admit the hypocrisy because everyone sees your refusal to answer for what it is.

Deal. I'll keep pretending it'll lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes, and you can keep believing its a humdinger thats got me stumped. See, everyone's happy.:)

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm afraid they're just irrelevant questions that likely lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes. But by all means believe they make humdinger points that leave me in their wake.

You claim there is differences between men and women that makes them better suited at different roles.
If you are to follow your logic, this means that you must think it's ok to discriminate based on gender, which would just expose your bigotry for what it is.
But if you are going to argue that you shouldn't discriminate based on gender you lose the consistency of your ridiculous argument.

You know this question destroys your point entirely, hence why you've deemed it irrelevant.
You seem to do this with any points you can't actually answer, and it just makes you more and more of a laughing stock. Which in turn will hopefully turn people away from you bigoted, closed mined way of thinking.
So good job really.

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm afraid they're just irrelevant questions that likely lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes. But by all means believe they make humdinger points that leave me in their wake.

Their relevance has to do with how consistent you are with your beliefs when they'd either allow for all forms of discrimination (in MadsL's case) or when they should contradict your religious beliefs (in mine) but go ahead and continue pretending you won't answer because it'll lead down "irrelevant rabbit holes" rather than publicly admit the hypocrisy because everyone sees your refusal to answer for what it is.

ShooterSF wrote: »

You'll find that along with my polyamorous question anything that makes his position uncomfortable will be ignored and thankfully he has enough people wound up at this point that he can still respond to many where he can at least feel he's making a decent argument based on personal bias.

I'm afraid they're just irrelevant questions that likely lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes. But by all means believe they make humdinger points that leave me in their wake.

MadsL wrote: »

Any word on an answer to my question Jimi?

You'll find that along with my polyamorous question anything that makes his position uncomfortable will be ignored and thankfully he has enough people wound up at this point that he can still respond to many where he can at least feel he's making a decent argument based on personal bias.

JimiTime wrote: »

To a degree, certainly not to the extent of disregard though. And certainly not to the extent where one believes a study on this subject is in any way conclusive. Especially if it contradicts what you see with your own eyes.

So then how come we have so many people directly telling you that they have observed the exact opposite of what you are claiming?
How could they possibly be wrong when they are using the exact same thing you are?

JimiTime wrote: »

the pool of test subjects is much too low to be any way conclusive.

What are you basing this on? Are you in any way trained in the relevant fields to reach this conclusion? Have you anything from people in the relevant field who can reach this conclusion.
If not, then I say that there is more than enough test subjects, so therefore there is. QED.

JimiTime wrote: »

Yet this resulted in different manifestations in men and women. Women most likely exhibited affectionate behaviour with their child while men were most likely to exhibit more stimulatory behaviour with their child. Same chemical level, but different reactions from mom and dad.

And did this study involve same sex parents, yes or no? If not, then you cannot claim it has anything to say on the matter.
Claiming it does is lying.

JimiTime wrote: »

Now I cannot understand why people are in denial about how men and women parent differently in general. I also can't understand why people actually require studies to see what is, and always has been, perfectly obvious to me, and to everyone I've asked in work and at home, be they atheist, Christian etc Bar NONE. (As I've asked this question to all the real world people I deal with on a daily basis since this conversation started).

Again, a dishonest strawman because you can't support you point.

No one is arguing that parents don't parent differently.
What we are arguing and you have failed to counter in any meaningful way is that there are no exclusive differences between genders in regards to parenting, nor is there any observable benefit or advantage to having both genders.
It's no wonder you can't understand the point when you are pretending it's something it's not.

So since it's so obvious to you and everyone you've asked (except the people here who say the opposite to you, who of course don't count), why is it so hard for you to use point out these differences, show that they are exclusive and show how they are more beneficial.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

If you wish to have an outside source inform you, then look for the studies that have a much less chance of been sullied by political antics.

Same tired line: "Things that agree with me are right. Things that don't agree with me are biased"

JimiTime wrote: »

Things like investigations into how fathers parent, and how mothers parent. I remember reading an article about how new fathers and mothers both get a rise in oxytocin or seretonin or something like that, in the first few months of having their child.

I know this is just crazy talk, but any chance you could actually find such an investigation? Y'know, rather than us having to analyse your half-baked vague memories of "something like that"

JimiTime wrote: »

Yet this resulted in different manifestations in men and women. Women most likely exhibited affectionate behaviour with their child while men were most likely to exhibit more stimulatory behaviour with their child. Same chemical level, but different reactions from mom and dad.

And this paper went on to investigate whether that change led to better development in the child? Did it investigate whether a child might do better if it had solely stimulatory or solely affectionate attention at different times? Did it investigate whether same sex parents responded in a similar way i.e. one parent tended to take on the affectionate role and one took on the stimulatory role? Or whether they shared the roles at different times?

yawha wrote: »

Would you not agree that most people's personal observations of others are extremely limited and extremely flawed due to bias?

To a degree, certainly not to the extent of disregard though. And certainly not to the extent where one believes a study on this subject is in any way conclusive. Especially if it contradicts what you see with your own eyes.

I know mine are, anyway. It's something I always make sure to keep in check and as such, I am very careful about the conclusions I make due to personal experience alone.

Which is commendable, after all, we like to be sure. However, I would not twist that into, 'My personal experience and observations can be disregarded, because a social study has been conducted'. Not only is social science a fairly blunt tool, but on this subject, the pool of test subjects is much too low to be any way conclusive. Add to that how the subject matter is so politically charged and such studies become less and less reliable. Even here, you can see people just foaming at the mouth to shout 'bigot'. It would be understandable if their frustration led to shouts of, 'stupid' etc. I can even understand the shouts of 'dishonesty'. However, there is a political programming afoot in the modern world, especially with all things LGBT. So much so, that a topic like this, which has absolutely nothing to do with LGBT other than their particular lobby pushing for the change, gets turned into politically charged mud slinging. In such a charged atmosphere, you'd be wise to trust your judgement more than you may do usually. If you wish to have an outside source inform you, then look for the studies that have a much less chance of been sullied by political antics. Things like investigations into how fathers parent, and how mothers parent. I remember reading an article about how new fathers and mothers both get a rise in oxytocin or seretonin or something like that, in the first few months of having their child. Yet this resulted in different manifestations in men and women. Women most likely exhibited affectionate behaviour with their child while men were most likely to exhibit more stimulatory behaviour with their child. Same chemical level, but different reactions from mom and dad.
Now I cannot understand why people are in denial about how men and women parent differently in general. I also can't understand why people actually require studies to see what is, and always has been, perfectly obvious to me, and to everyone I've asked in work and at home, be they atheist, Christian etc Bar NONE. (As I've asked this question to all the real world people I deal with on a daily basis since this conversation started). My personal opinion on it, is that its due to them not having a vested interest that puts a barrier in the way of this rather obvious point. Strangely enough though, when the conversation is brought up in the context of LGBT 'rights', you see the discomfort it causes. All of a sudden, what was obvious to them 2 days ago, becomes a bit muddled. You should try it. Just raise the topic simply in the context of, 'Do you think mothers and fathers parent differently?', And then, 'Do you think these differences are important to a child' etc. The conversation becomes very open I find, people comfortable giving opinions etc. Then a few days later, if you raise the issue, but in the context of LGBT, and gay adoption, you will see in SOME, that what was obvious a few days ago, all of a sudden is not just flowing out in honesty's comfort, but is getting held up in a political filter. We can all be social scientists if we want to be

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

If that is true, should I as an employer be able to choose a man over a woman in selecting someone for employment because of my belief in their gender difference through my observations?

Any word on an answer to my question Jimi?

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

My issue is in terms of adoption. Giving children to two gay men rather than to a mother/father dynamic etc. The biological children due to arrangements made with donors etc or from a former heterosexual relationship etc is a different debate.

But you're not prepared to debate the topic of adoption. You haven't given any credible reasons as to why opposite sex couples should be given preference.

If you want to have that debate, the floor is yours.

King Mob wrote: »

You have a negative opinion about a group of people. That's bigotry. It's made worse because you can't even attempt to defend it.

What makes it even worse again is that he's basing it on his observations of a completely different group of people.

It's akin to me thinking bus drivers make good drivers, based on nothing more that just my own, limited, observations, and then "logically" assuming that taxi drivers must be inferior drivers, even though I've (hypothetically) never seen a taxi driver in action.

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all, my position has the complete safety net of history. We KNOW mother/father dynamics work from years and years and years and years and years of experience and billions of examples. So even if I was wrong, the consequence will have been that children will have grown up with a mam and dad.

But your position is not just that straight parents work. You have stated that gay parents are inferior. That is the statement you have to back up.
What you are doing now is moving the goalposts and shifting the burden of proof, which are dishonest tactics.

So again, please explain to us the precautions you took to ensure that your conclusion was free from bias and other confounding factors.

JimiTime wrote: »

Your side of the fence is still a social experiment with children, the results of which will not be truly known until we have a MUCH MUCH bigger pool of incidences to witness.

We have posted a ream of studies that show clearly that the results are known and do not argee with you.
And my personal experience, which is as valid as yours tells me the exact opposite of what you claim.

JimiTime wrote: »

It matches reality fine, and thankfully, even if it was wrong, it would have no impact whatsoever on children, unlike your own position.

Well one, no it doesn't because we've given you plenty of examples you are ignoring and the science does not support your opinion.

And yes, your opinion would have an impact on the children, who's rights to their proper parents are at risk as well the rights of the parents who you are treating as less than other people based on your subjective opinion.

JimiTime wrote: »

I know you think that I'm dishonest (Actually I don't even believe that, I think you are just an angry kinda guy), and in that I certainly don't care.

You have used dishonest tactics and continually ignore points and reuse arguments that have been tackled without providing a defense.
What would you call that if not dishonesty?

JimiTime wrote: »

If you can show me the bigotry you accuse me of, I'll be able to correct your poor observation.

You have a negative opinion about a group of people. That's bigotry. It's made worse because you can't even attempt to defend it.

JimiTime wrote: »

It seems to me, that your attitude is more akin to a 13 year old who isn't getting his way than to anything adult.

Well I'm not the one ignoring things I don't like and telling fibs...

King Mob wrote: »

If you are as concerned about finding out what is best for children, you must have taken measures to insure that you are not falling into the same logical traps all people are in danger of falling into.

Not at all, my position has the complete safety net of history. We KNOW mother/father dynamics work from years and years and years and years and years of experience and billions of examples. So even if I was wrong, the consequence will have been that children will have grown up with a mam and dad. Your side of the fence is still a social experiment with children, the results of which will not be truly known until we have a MUCH MUCH bigger pool of incidences to witness.

But then, we both know you aren't concerned and didn't take any such measures because you you actually care if your opinion matches reality

It matches reality fine, and thankfully, even if it was wrong, it would have no impact whatsoever on children, unlike your own position.

I call it like I see it. You are dishonest, you know you are being dishonest, but you don't care.

I know you think that I'm dishonest (Actually I don't even believe that, I think you are just an angry kinda guy), and in that I certainly don't care.

Says the man still unwilling to give his bigoted opinion the barest of defenses, and reached his conclusion because he just saw it. :rolleyes:

If you can show me the bigotry you accuse me of, I'll be able to correct your poor observation.

The difference is I can back up my opinion and show how dishonest, bigoted and close minded you are.
That's what honest adults do when they claim something.

It seems to me, that your attitude is more akin to a 13 year old who isn't getting his way than to anything adult.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

As I've kept saying, I see no value in giving you my observations. You only trust yourselves to a degree, so would definitely not trust me. At this point in time, you require to see it yourself, and also have people show you using a process you have faith in, i.e. studies etc. I know already that what I would say would not suffice. What I have is simply not good enough to convince anyone that has already formed an opinion that fathers and mothers are inconsequential. It will simply give you a bigger shovel with which you can dig yourselves further into your opinions.

Do you by any chance think I'm being dishonest? Stop beating round the bush and just say it will ye!:)

Just so you know, the above point about the studies, just shows how unwise it would be to spoon-feed you. My points would be absolutely worthless to you. Any answers must be arrived at from yourself.

Again, you are entitled to your opinions, its just a shame they're so lazy minded.

How are those opinions so lazy minded ? your opinion is simply this - based on my observations gay men should not be allowed to adopt children'' .

You won't expand on your observations , what you see, where you see it, with whom you see it etc- for all we know you could be basing your views on the monkey cage in Dublin Zoo.

And you call others lazy minded !

By the way those gay couples that do have children through whatever mechanism- do you think the HSE should get involved ? That would be the consistant with your view would it not ?

yawha

Would you not agree that most people's personal observations of others are extremely limited and extremely flawed due to bias?

I know mine are, anyway. It's something I always make sure to keep in check and as such, I am very careful about the conclusions I make due to personal experience alone.

JimiTime wrote: »

As I've kept saying, I see no value in giving you my observations. You only trust yourselves to a degree, so would definitely not trust me. At this point in time, you require to see it yourself, and also have people show you using a process you have faith in, i.e. studies etc. I know already that what I would say would not suffice. What I have is simply not good enough to convince anyone that has already formed an opinion that fathers and mothers are inconsequential. It will simply give you a bigger shovel with which you can dig yourselves further into your opinions.

A lame attempt to fob off the fact you can't back up your claims.

What you see is worthless and unconvincing because you cannot exclude factors that might have caused you to reach an incorrect conclusion.
I've asked you this before, but again, you ignored that point too.

Explain to us how you were able to exclude possibilities of unconscious bias, skewed samples and other such factors did not play a role in your conclusion.
Or if you can't explain that, be honest for a change and admit it.

If you are as concerned about finding out what is best for children, you must have taken measures to insure that you are not falling into the same logical traps all people are in danger of falling into.

But then, we both know you aren't concerned and didn't take any such measures because you you actually care if your opinion matches reality

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you by any chance think I'm being dishonest? Stop beating round the bush and just say it will ye!:)

I call it like I see it. You are dishonest, you know you are being dishonest, but you don't care.

JimiTime wrote: »

Just so you know, the above point about the studies, just shows how unwise it would be to spoon-feed you. My points would be absolutely worthless to you. Any answers must be arrived at from yourself.

These sentances make no sense and do not address the point you are still ignoring.
You are claiming that some studies can conclude stuff they didn't study.
This is lying.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, you are entitled to your opinions, its just a shame they're so lazy minded.

Says the man still unwilling to give his bigoted opinion the barest of defenses, and reached his conclusion because he just saw it. :rolleyes:

The difference is I can back up my opinion and show how dishonest, bigoted and close minded you are.
That's what honest adults do when they claim something.

King Mob wrote: »

And we've all told you that we don't see what you claim is there.
But instead of doing the closed minded think you did and end the discussion there we asked you to point out what differences you were referring to and to detail how these were essential to child rearing.
You cannot do that.

As I've kept saying, I see no value in giving you my observations. You only trust yourselves to a degree, so would definitely not trust me. At this point in time, you require to see it yourself, and also have people show you using a process you have faith in, i.e. studies etc. I know already that what I would say would not suffice. What I have is simply not good enough to convince anyone that has already formed an opinion that fathers and mothers are inconsequential. It will simply give you a bigger shovel with which you can dig yourselves further into your opinions.

For example despite being told several times that the studies looking into the supposed differences cannot be used to conclude what you want to conclude, you are still using that canard and ignoring that point.
This is just one example of your dishonesty.

Do you by any chance think I'm being dishonest? Stop beating round the bush and just say it will ye!:)

Just so you know, the above point about the studies, just shows how unwise it would be to spoon-feed you. My points would be absolutely worthless to you. Any answers must be arrived at from yourself.

Your closed-mindedness, dishonesty and your clear bigotry is what make you like Fred Phelps and his ilk.

Again, you are entitled to your opinions, its just a shame they're so lazy minded.

JimiTime wrote: »

So again, if all the good folk here are open minded, then start observing real life, and see if you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, then hey, we disagree. This view allegedly makes me Fred Phelps, who allegedly is pretty much the same as The Pope. Who knew!?:)

And we've all told you that we don't see what you claim is there.
But instead of doing the closed minded thing you did and end the discussion there we asked you to point out what differences you were referring to and to detail how these were essential to child rearing.
You cannot do that.

You don't care that you can't do it and are going to dishonestly pretend that you can and ignore all of the points made against you.
For example despite being told several times that the studies looking into the supposed differences cannot be used to conclude what you want to conclude, you are still using that canard and ignoring that point.
This is just one example of your dishonesty.

Your closed-mindedness, dishonesty and your clear bigotry is what make you like Fred Phelps and his ilk.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Equality is very much at the heart of the matter here, and that includes equality for children with same sex parents. It's been pointed out several times in the thread that those children are at a legal disadvantage when compared to children whose parents are able to enter into a legally recognised marriage. I think Bannisidhe's post alone goes to show the lengths someone has to go to to bring some semblance of legal stability to a child's situation. And not everyone will have her resources, or know how.

I do actually believe that there should be some kind of legal framework. What this would be, I don't know, nor is it relevant to what I'm arguing.

So if your concern is really for children, you should be the first line demanding the rights of those children be protected by extending civil marriage rights to same sex couples.

Again, I have been the one asking my fellow Christians, what the reasoning behind their objections to the term 'marriage' being used is.

My issue is in terms of adoption. Giving children to two gay men rather than to a mother/father dynamic etc. The biological children due to arrangements made with donors etc or from a former heterosexual relationship etc is a different debate.