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

14-08-2012 07:13PM

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...

NuMarvel · 14-08-2012 09:10PM

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.

MadsL · 15-08-2012 12:07AM

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?

JimiTime · 15-08-2012 12:14PM

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

15-08-2012 12:25PM

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?

15-08-2012 12:34PM

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.

ShooterSF · 15-08-2012 01:41PM

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 · 15-08-2012 02:10PM

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.

ShooterSF · 15-08-2012 02:27PM

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.

15-08-2012 02:30PM

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 · 15-08-2012 02:48PM

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.:)

15-08-2012 02:50PM

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"

15-08-2012 03:11PM

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.

ShooterSF · 15-08-2012 03:28PM

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 · 15-08-2012 03:40PM

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 · 15-08-2012 03:43PM

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?:)

15-08-2012 03:46PM

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 · 15-08-2012 03:49PM

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 · 15-08-2012 04:02PM

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 · 15-08-2012 04:18PM

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!

15-08-2012 04:30PM

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.

JimiTime · 15-08-2012 05:25PM

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Yet your dishonesty accusation is just an assertion based on second guessing my motives.

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

As I said, THAT would be dishonest of me, as studies had nothing to do with the forming of my opinion. Its really not that hard to grasp. You want to draw me into a sparring match, I'm teklling you to go inform yourself. YOU are the one who can't believe anything without a study, so I'm just telling you what you should look for. Its not my fault if you couldn't be @rsed. Studies are YOUR bag, as I said, if it was something you wanted tio find, it'd be here pages ago. So if you have any interest in hammering out the truth, then go to the sources that I'm sure you delve into regularly.

No it does not automatically imply that.

It does. Fathers and mothers are of consequence, or they are not.

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.

Well you are the ones that believes in social science so much that you take its findings as gospel truth. I don't. So I'm telling you, if you actually have any interest in the topic, and informing yourself, then go look for some studies in areas unlikely to be sullied by political ideologies.

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

Maybe it'll eventually come about, but it will be of little value to you which is why I insist that you simply look for yourself. In the beginning, you guys gave me a little doubt in terms of maybe me being too sure that what I allude to is obvious. But having talked to real world folk since, I am more convinced than ever, that you are just here for the fight. So if you really want to know what I'm talking about, just do what I've repeatedly advised.

I'm not being aggressive, I'm stating facts

For someone who demands facts, you seem to have quite a poor idea as to what makes something a fact

Your posts now are becoming even more childish on top of dishonest and underhanded.

Well you started it. I've just enjoyed the game.

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.

Haha. So hang on, I'm a liar and a bigot, but I've resorted to name calling?:D Good one. Oh hang on though, you are just stating facts. Got it!

yawha · 15-08-2012 05:33PM

Jimi, have you ever observed homosexual parents and how they interact with their child?
Have any of the "real world folk" you've spoken to?

15-08-2012 05:39PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Yet your dishonesty accusation is just an assertion based on second guessing my motives.

No, you're dishonest because you use dishonest tactics and lie. I don't have to guess anything.

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, THAT would be dishonest of me, as studies had nothing to do with the forming of my opinion. Its really not that hard to grasp. You want to draw me into a sparring match, I'm teklling you to go inform yourself. YOU are the one who can't believe anything without a study, so I'm just telling you what you should look for. Its not my fault if you couldn't be @rsed. Studies are YOUR bag, as I said, if it was something you wanted tio find, it'd be here pages ago. So if you have any interest in hammering out the truth, then go to the sources that I'm sure you delve into regularly.

And I have looked at the studies that are relevant.
You are claiming stuff about these other studies, but are unable to provide them.
If you are claiming something, you have to back it up.
But you can't back it up, making your claim a lie.

JimiTime wrote: »

It does. Fathers and mothers are of consequence, or they are not.

Is it impossible that same sex parents are capable of filling the roles of the opposite gender? Yes or no?
Do the studies you are claiming to quote say that same sex parents are not capable of doing that? yes or no?

If your answers are yes, you need to back it up.
If your answers are honest for once and are no, then you cannot reach your conclusion.

If however you just ignore the point as usual, it's an admission that the answers are no you are just not honest enough to admit it.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well you are the ones that believes in social science so much that you take its findings as gospel truth. I don't. So I'm telling you, if you actually have any interest in the topic, and informing yourself, then go look for some studies in areas unlikely to be sullied by political ideologies.

And I have, all the relevant well conducted studies bring me to one conclusion, that you are wrong.

If you think these studies are all somehow tainted, you're welcome to back that up too.

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe it'll eventually come about, but it will be of little value to you which is why I insist that you simply look for yourself. In the beginning, you guys gave me a little doubt in terms of maybe me being too sure that what I allude to is obvious. But having talked to real world folk since, I am more convinced than ever, that you are just here for the fight. So if you really want to know what I'm talking about, just do what I've repeatedly advised.

But you cannot point to these differences you continue to natter on about. You cannot show that they are exclusive to one gender or the other. You cannot show that they are essential or more beneficial to child rearing.
This makes it look exactly like such differences do not exist.
You keep saying they are obvious, yet we've yet to see you even try to point them out.

So until you do start to back up your claim, you should do the honest thing and not make it.

JimiTime wrote: »

Haha. So hang on, I'm a liar and a bigot, but I've resorted to name calling?:D Good one. Oh hang on though, you are just stating facts. Got it!

Again, I can back up all of those using what you've posted.
If you don't like people calling you those things, stop posting as if you were those things.

marienbad · 15-08-2012 06:21PM

yawha wrote: »

Jimi, have you ever observed homosexual parents and how they interact with their child?
Have any of the "real world folk" you've spoken to?

You are wasting your time jimi dos'nt answer questions.

MadsL · 15-08-2012 07:58PM

marienbad wrote: »

You are wasting your time jimi dos'nt answer questions.

I'm beginning to believe that. I'll try once more; Jimi no rabbit holes. In your world view is it acceptable for an employer to use his 'observations about gender differences' to favour one sex over another?

If yes, what is your opinion about legislation preventing that?
If no, how does that fit with you view about adoption - if workplace discrimination is unethical then why is an adoption so different?

If you choose not to answer, then I'm out because you clearly have no interest in discussion and I would wonder then why you are a member of a discussion forum.

JimiTime · 16-08-2012 12:45AM

yawha wrote: »

Jimi, have you ever observed homosexual parents and how they interact with their child?
Have any of the "real world folk" you've spoken to?

I haven't, and I doubt it would be my answer there. The thing is, when you realise how fathers and mothers parent, you realise that they are important. So in realising that they are generally different, and those differences important, then it is clear that a mother and father is what every child should ideally have. Those little things you think make no difference, like dads throwing the baby about, play-bashing them etc. They are all impacting the child. Like what I alluded to earlier in relation to how men and women react differently to the release of oxytocin brought on by the arrival of their child. The mans reaction to the same dose of the chemical in their blood manifests itself differently to how it manifests in a woman. A woman exhibits affectionate parenting behaviour, while the man exhibits stimulous paenting behaviour. And that is NOT social science, but real science. Measuring the chemicals, and studying the responses.

I mean, does it not flabbergast you that people are so dismissive of the importance of even having a male and female role model? And because of what? A political ideology, reinforced by social studies which are statistically inadequate as there are not enough cases to conduct a test on a random population. Add to that the tremendous amounts of different make-ups to the nuclear family, the studies become of even less value. Then introduce the political agenda demanding 'equality' and calling anyone concerned about the child a bigot, and its one foul mess. Theres no arguing people around. There is only people honestly looking at things without the political specs on.

JimiTime · 16-08-2012 12:49AM

marienbad wrote: »

You are wasting your time jimi dos'nt answer questions.

Just because I may or may not decide to answer irrelevant, obtuse or stupid questions, or may or may not ignore posters I find a bit stupid or vindictive doesn't mean I don't answer questions. Just for the record;)

16-08-2012 01:20AM

JimiTime wrote: »

I haven't, and I doubt it would be my answer there.

lol, so not only can you not show what you are claiming, let alone back it up in any way, you are now admitting that even the way you've come to the conclusion was completely biased and did not actually look at the issue you are discussing.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is only people honestly looking at things without the political specs on.

How can you honestly say anything about gay parents when you admit you don't actually know anything about them?

You've not met any of them. None of the studies you've decided are valid study them. All for the studies that do you've rejected without reading them. You can't point out what you claim are the essential benefits to a straight family or show they exist or are essential. And then you reject out of hand the opinions of others who disagree with you including gay parents and their children.

This means the only thing you could be basing you conclusion on is your own bias, politics and bigotry.

And you've the cheek to pretend that you "just care about the children"....:rolleyes:

ShooterSF · 16-08-2012 01:32AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Just because I may or may not decide to answer irrelevant, obtuse or stupid questions, or may or may not ignore posters I find a bit stupid or vindictive doesn't mean I don't answer questions. Just for the record;)

And in this case you've explained why you won't answer; You are "... pretending that the questions you and MDSL propose will lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes"

It's simply up to other users to draw their own conclusions on why you pretend to do such!

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

Comments