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

Child Item

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

PDN

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

We're talking about adoption, not childbirth. A hormone released during and after childbirth would hardly seem relevant here, would it?

Of course, if you have "real" science examples of how it is relevant to adoption, then please share them.

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

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

Hang on, this isn't like when I asked you to back up your bigot accusation and you came back with nothing but a lame definition of what a bigot was is it?

Of course, if you could show me these incidents you speak of, just like with the bigot accusation you couldn't back up, I'll be able to correct your faulty conclusion.

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.

Its not my fault if you can't be @rsed. You are the one who is so over-reliant on social science. You keep ignoring the fact that I couldn't give a sh1t what studies are there. Be they for or against my point. Studies didn't form my opinion. So if you are actually interested in truth, which I gather you must be with all your sh1te'n about jimi the liar, dishonest 'tactics' (whatever they are) etc. Then look for yourself. You have a computer don't you? You seem to want to have a fisty-cuffs, and shout at me more than anything else.

Is it impossible that same sex parents are capable of filling the roles of the opposite gender? Yes or no?

Depends what you mean by fill the role. If you are asking can a man be a good mother, or a woman a good father my answer would be that its entirely possible, but it would not be the rule but the exception, and also not ideal. They would also not fill the job of role model. Implicit learning is so important, probably even more-so that explicit learning. Simply growing up with a good loving dad and mum, gives one a great view of the sexes.

You see, my position doesn't say that same-sex/single/transgender/bisexual parents can't raise a child. Its only you guys who get bogged down with all that sh1te, because its all spun as equality.

My position is simply that when it comes to adoption, the best interests of the child are at the forefront at all times. Part of this must be the insistence, in spite of all the political shenanigans, that having a mother and father, a male and female role model to raise a child is the ideal, and best for the child.

Do the studies you are claiming to quote say that same sex parents are not capable of doing that? yes or no?

What studies have I quoted? And also, even leaving aside the implicit learning a child gets from observing his male and female role models i.e. mom and dad, this is not about capabilities. For instance, If I said that fathers play fight with their children more, are rougher, and allow the child to be rougher to them. It could easily be said, well a mother COULD do this. The point is though, that in general, they don't. There are natural tendencies (And for the record, the natural insticts of fathers to rough house with their kids the way they do, is said to teach children limits in terms of going too far, resulting in them actually being less violent and aggressive. These things we think innocuous ey. )

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

And you are free to trust in these studies. I just think its a mighty risky trust you got, when you consider that its the lives of children that will be affected. You essentially trust the conclusions of studies that must be selective due to there not being enough cases to test, are conducted in an extremely politically charged environment, and still do not deal with the many variants. I.E. even if they showed that lesbians are this, that wouldn't apply to trangenders or gay men and so on and so forth. The only time when the type of study you are suggesting will actually produce anything statistically meaningful, is when there is a random pool big enough to test from. The problem is though, that in order to get anywhere near such a point, children will have to be used as guinea pigs, and that is something I certainly do not wish to happen.

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

Could you detail the studies that have convinced you personally, and link to them after you detail them?

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.

They ARE obvious. To think I'm here, ALONE, having demands to prove that men and women are different, parent differently and are important to children is actually quite surreal. Unfortunately a political ideology seems to have gone to your head and kicked your brain out yer ear.

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

Even simply talking about male and female role models is enough to back up the claim that mothers and fathers are important.

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.

Fire away so. I'm a liar and a bigot, and you are going to show that this is FACT. Can't wait.:)

JimiTime

NuMarvel wrote: »

We're talking about adoption, not childbirth. A hormone released during and after childbirth would hardly seem relevant here, would it?

Of course, if you have "real" science examples of how it is relevant to adoption, then please share them.

Its an example of very real gender differences, but thank you for another example of why spoon feeding is very unwise when people are just looking for a cock fight.

JimiTime

ShooterSF wrote: »

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!

Indeed it is shooter, indeed it is.

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Its an example of very real gender differences, but thank you for another example of why spoon feeding is very unwise when people are just looking for a cock fight.

Just for arguments's sake say your argument were true jimitime, it would have no applicability in the real world. You are just proposing your version of an ideal .

Now if you want a discussion lets have one .

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

Its not my fault if you can't be @rsed. You are the one who is so over-reliant on social science. You keep ignoring the fact that I couldn't give a sh1t what studies are there. Be they for or against my point. Studies didn't form my opinion. So if you are actually interested in truth, which I gather you must be with all your sh1te'n about jimi the liar, dishonest 'tactics' (whatever they are) etc. Then look for yourself. You have a computer don't you? You seem to want to have a fisty-cuffs, and shout at me more than anything else.

You claimed that those studies indicated that fathers and mothers where both essential and can be used to conclude that same sex parents are inferior.
You have to back up this claim.

It's not that I'm not arsed to look up these studies, it's that they aren't relevant. I have made several points about how they aren't relevant, but you ignore them, then continue to half heartily throw out those studies.

JimiTime wrote: »

Depends what you mean by fill the role. If you are asking can a man be a good mother, or a woman a good father my answer would be that its entirely possible, but it would not be the rule but the exception, and also not ideal. They would also not fill the job of role model. Implicit learning is so important, probably even more-so that explicit learning. Simply growing up with a good loving dad and mum, gives one a great view of the sexes.

You see, my position doesn't say that same-sex/single/transgender/bisexual parents can't raise a child. Its only you guys who get bogged down with all that sh1te, because its all spun as equality.

You see it's a yes or no question, but you can't even answer that directly.
I asked if you thought it was impossible, you said it isn't. This means your point that the differences you claim exist are exclusive is not true.

If you are going to now claim that fathers can fill the supposed role of the mother (and vice versa), but not as well, you are going to have to show where in your studies it says this, or provide other studies that back this up.
If you can't, or ignore the question, withdraw the point.

JimiTime wrote: »

My position is simply that when it comes to adoption, the best interests of the child are at the forefront at all times. Part of this must be the insistence, in spite of all the political shenanigans, that having a mother and father, a male and female role model to raise a child is the ideal, and best for the child.

Sure, and if you actually cared about those kids, you'd make sure that you can defend your point. You can't do that.

JimiTime wrote: »

What studies have I quoted? And also, even leaving aside the implicit learning a child gets from observing his male and female role models i.e. mom and dad, this is not about capabilities. For instance, If I said that fathers play fight with their children more, are rougher, and allow the child to be rougher to them. It could easily be said, well a mother COULD do this. The point is though, that in general, they don't. There are natural tendencies (And for the record, the natural insticts of fathers to rough house with their kids the way they do, is said to teach children limits in terms of going too far, resulting in them actually being less violent and aggressive. These things we think innocuous ey. )

Again, a yes or no question you can't answer directly.
Please try again.
Do the studies you are nattering on about actually say that same sex parents are not capable of doing that or even less capable? Yes or no?

If no (the honest answer) you can't honestly continue to use that point.

JimiTime wrote: »

And you are free to trust in these studies. I just think its a mighty risky trust you got, when you consider that its the lives of children that will be affected. You essentially trust the conclusions of studies that must be selective due to there not being enough cases to test, are conducted in an extremely politically charged environment, and still do not deal with the many variants. I.E. even if they showed that lesbians are this, that wouldn't apply to trangenders or gay men and so on and so forth. The only time when the type of study you are suggesting will actually produce anything statistically meaningful, is when there is a random pool big enough to test from. The problem is though, that in order to get anywhere near such a point, children will have to be used as guinea pigs, and that is something I certainly do not wish to happen.

Could you detail the studies that have convinced you personally, and link to them after you detail them?

lol, you refuse to provide the studies you are making claims about as well as refuse to actually provide your point, yet you expect others to provide the same stuff.:rolleyes:

But included in this post is a long list of studies that actually compare same sex couples with comparable straight couples in various different ways using different sample sizes all of which have passed strict peer review.
Please provide evidence that all of these studies are tainted by bias or use inadequate sample size.

Otherwise, stop using your unsupported insinuation to reject them without reading them.

JimiTime wrote: »

They ARE obvious.

Then point them out, show that they are exclusive and show how they are required or more beneficial.

Why are you incapable of doing this?
Why not just post them and stop dragging it out?

JimiTime wrote: »

To think I'm here, ALONE, having demands to prove that men and women are different, parent differently and are important to children is actually quite surreal. Unfortunately a political ideology seems to have gone to your head and kicked your brain out yer ear.

Strawman argument.
No one is arguing that men and women aren't different.
No one is arguing that different people don't parent differently.

We are arguing that there are no differences in parenting that are exclusive between genders and are beneficial in a straight couple.
We don't believe these exist because you've not being able to point to any, let alone back them up.

JimiTime wrote: »

Even simply talking about male and female role models is enough to back up the claim that mothers and fathers are important.

But that does not imply that both a mother and a father are required or more beneficial.

But again how can you possibly comment on what a gay couple can and cannot provide when you know absolutely zero about them?

JimiTime wrote: »

Fire away so. I'm a liar and a bigot, and you are going to show that this is FACT. Can't wait.:)

Bigot:
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
You regard gay parents as inferiour to straight parents. You are basing this soley on your own opinion which you've admitted is totally ill-informed and rejecting all conflicting opinion and science that might try to inform you.
You are by definition a bigot.

You are a liar because you've claimed that some studies concluded something that they could not possibly conclude. If you claim something that isn't true, it's defined as a lie. A liar is someone who lies.

Further there are numerous examples of you ignoring points while containing you use arguments that those points debunk, using dishonest tactics like shifting the goalposts and strawmaning and of course admitting to feigning a disagreement to avoid a point you can't answer.

Seriously if you think you're being honest in this debate you need a long hard look at yourself.

MadsL

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;)

So the fact you are ignoring the question means you are calling me either stupid or vindictive? Don't we have a charter about that?
Post reported.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Jimi, this logic is fundamentally flawed. Your whole argument rests on conclusions that cannot be drawn from your premises. If I were to attempt to formalise this type of argument in my field of study, I'd be laughed out the door. The second sentence baffles me; just because two things are different and important says nothing - NOTHING - about the relative merits of any other two things.

Apples and oranges are different. Most children have one apple and one orange in their lunch boxes. A handful of children, however, have either two apples or two oranges.

Now, how would you determine that one apple and one orange offered a better nutritional value than either two apples or two oranges?

According to you, it should be so obvious, we don't even need telling. You are saying because one apple and one orange are different and, as if it makes any difference, common and conventional, they MUST be better. Why would nature give us both apples and oranges otherwise?

According to us, we propose some medical tests to measure how the different sets of fruit affect the health of the children. This is rational, logical, and, most importantly, the correct thing to do in order to make a proper conclusion.

NuMarvel

JimiTime wrote: »

Its an example of very real gender differences, but thank you for another example of why spoon feeding is very unwise when people are just looking for a cock fight.

If you don't have examples of how what you're saying relates to adoption, then just say so.

Penn

I think we've all established by now that JimiTime's only objection to gay marriage is that men are better at reading maps than women, something which is of course vital to the upbringing of a child.

Delirium

Penn wrote: »

I think we've all established by now that JimiTime's only objection to gay marriage is that men are better at reading maps than women, something which is of course vital to the upbringing of a child.

That's an argument against sat-navs, not gay marriage :pac:

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

Jimi, this logic is fundamentally flawed. Your whole argument rests on conclusions that cannot be drawn from your premises.

Tell me, if we establish that fathers and mothers are important to a child, how does that NOT imply, that fathers and mothers are important to a child? It of course follows on that ideally children should have a mom and dad if we establish that both moms and dads are important.

If I were to attempt to formalise this type of argument in my field of study, I'd be laughed out the door.

Why so?

The second sentence baffles me; just because two things are different and important says nothing - NOTHING - about the relative merits of any other two things.

How can you say that? If the roles of a father and mother are deemed important in a childs life, then you can't then just say they are not important, i.e. it'll be fine if they don't have one or the other. They are either important, or they are not.

Apples and oranges are different. Most children have one apple and one orange in their lunch boxes. A handful of children, however, have either two apples or two oranges.

Now, how would you determine that one apple and one orange offered a better nutritional value than either two apples or two oranges?

Well, if you establish lets say, that oranges have nutritional value A, B and C, and that Apples have a different nutritional Value say D, E and F, and we see that the spectrum of nutrition offered by both is important. Then we can say that 2 oranges or two apples do not offer the full nutritional value that having an apple AND and orange offer.

According to you, it should be so obvious, we don't even need telling.

I have to ask, do you REALLY need telling? Honestly, if the political argument was not there, would it even be a question?

You are saying because one apple and one orange are different and, as if it makes any difference, common and conventional, they MUST be better. Why would nature give us both apples and oranges otherwise?

No, I'm saying we see the differences, and recognise their importance. To continue with your analogy; It would be like saying we know this vitamin is good for the kidneys, and this one good for the bowels etc, and they are found in apples. Then we say this vitamin is good for the immune stystem and this one for the blood and they are found in oranges. So ideally, eat an apple and an orange for a more full and balanced nutritional intake.

According to us, we propose some medical tests to measure how the different sets of fruit affect the health of the children. This is rational, logical, and, most importantly, the correct thing to do in order to make a proper conclusion.

Firstly, would you agree then, that establishing the importance of a father and a mother, apple and an orange, implies that variables of this are not the ideal?

Secondly, would you believe that real science and social science are the same in terms of reliability? If so, what are the factors you would look at when looking at the reliability of a social study?

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

I think we've all established by now that JimiTime's only objection to gay marriage is that men are better at reading maps than women, something which is of course vital to the upbringing of a child.

Could you point out where I objected to gay marriage in and of itself?

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

No, I'm saying we see the differences, and recognise their importance. To continue with your analogy; It would be like saying we know this vitamin is good for the kidneys, and this one good for the bowels etc, and they are found in apples. Then we say this vitamin is good for the immune stystem and this one for the blood and they are found in oranges. So ideally, eat an apple and an orange for a more full and balanced nutritional intake.

And if a doctor tells you to eat more oranges because you have scurvy, you'll continue with your 1+1 approach? What about the fact that all strains of one fruit do not have the same nutritional value, and in fact have a huge amount of cross-over? And if 1 apple and 1 orange is the "ideal", surely 2 apples and 2 oranges is even more "ideal", so we should look to polygamy as the perfect solution?

What if you have the choice of two really good apples or one bad apple and one bad orange? Oh wait, sorry, I forgot, that's a "stupid" question because... well, just because

JimiTime

MadsL wrote: »

So the fact you are ignoring the question means you are calling me either stupid or vindictive? Don't we have a charter about that?
Post reported.

Or that your question is irrelevant. But if you reckon that stupid or vindictive more accurately describes your posts, then work away. I wouldn't have been that harsh on you. Good luck showing how my post means I called YOU stupid or vindictive though:)

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you point out where I objected to gay marriage in and of itself?

Sorry, you're right. I meant to say gay adoption. Apologies.

I think we've all established by now that JimiTime's only objection to gay adoption is that men are better at reading maps than women, something which is of course vital to the upbringing of a child.

Bannasidhe

Penn wrote: »

I think we've all established by now that JimiTime's only objection to gay marriage is that men are better at reading maps than women, something which is of course vital to the upbringing of a child.

I happen to be excellent at reading maps. I love maps. My brother couldn't find his way out of a paper bag if he had to rely on a map for directions.:D

He's so bad that he has phoned me from the wilds of Mayo for directions (I live in Cork). This means I have to read the map and explain to him over the phone where he needs to go. He usually write my directions on the back of the map he has failed to be able to read.

Exception's to Jimi's 'rules' do keep popping up - perhaps because they are not 'rules' at all - just what Jimi thinks?

Sarky

That's a whole lot of pages of JimiTime waving his hands vaguely and finding new ways to disguise his prejudices. I wish I'd bought popcorn yesterday

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

You claimed that those studies indicated that fathers and mothers where both essential and can be used to conclude that same sex parents are inferior.
You have to back up this claim.

I can't believe I didn't see this sooner, but it explains a lot.
OK, just to clear up this misunderstanding.

1) Studies have NOT formed my opinion on this topic.

2) When I say to the the study junkies about looking for studies on fathers and mothers etc, I'm not actually saying that I've read them etc I thought I was quite clear on that many times. I've alluded to things I've read in times gone by relating to roles of fathers etc, but I haven't got a reem of studies that I'm just not giving you. LOL, if you think I've been saying I have all the proof, I'm just not giving it. I thought I was repeatedly clear, that what I have is of no value to you and those who think similarly. I've told you, that if you have an honest interest in the truth of the matter, open your eyes, start looking for yourself going forward. If you require studies, I've said have a look for studies relating to fathers and mothers etc, rather than ones that have an increased risk of being sullied by political agendas. I mean, I'm assuming that's what those who require studies do? You look for studies on the topics you're debating or what-not? That is your field of knowledge by the sounds of it. Looking at and analysing studies etc, so you would be better qualified to know the value of the study etc.

It's not that I'm not arsed to look up these studies, it's that they aren't relevant.

Well, if such studies are floating about, I'm surprised you think they'd be irrelevant. How could establishing the importance of fathers and mothers be irrelevant to an issue relating to if mothers and fathers are inconsequential. If you don't concede this point, then I'll have to just disagree, as it really just speaks for itself.

I have made several points about how they aren't relevant,

Your points are wrong though, as they are entirely relevant. How could they not be? As I said, How could establishing the importance of fathers and mothers be irrelevant to an issue relating to if mothers and fathers are inconsequential? Seems quite a ridiculous stand to take.

You see it's a yes or no question, but you can't even answer that directly.
I asked if you thought it was impossible, you said it isn't. This means your point that the differences you claim exist are exclusive is not true.

Are you serious? I mean really? I think I may have given you too much credit.

If you are going to now claim that fathers can fill the supposed role of the mother (and vice versa), but not as well, you are going to have to show where in your studies it says this, or provide other studies that back this up.
If you can't, or ignore the question, withdraw the point.

I reiterate.
If you are asking can a man be a good mother, or a woman a good father my answer would be that its entirely possible, but it would not be the rule but the exception, and also not ideal. They would also not fill the job of role model. Implicit learning is so important, probably even more-so that explicit learning. Simply growing up with a good loving dad and mum, gives one a great view of the sexes.

You see, my position doesn't say that same-sex/single/transgender/bisexual parents can't raise a child. Its only you guys who get bogged down with all that sh1te, because its all spun as equality.

My position is simply that when it comes to adoption, the best interests of the child are at the forefront at all times. Part of this must be the insistence, in spite of all the political shenanigans, that having a mother and father, a male and female role model to raise a child is the ideal, and best for the child.

lol, you refuse to provide the studies you are making claims about as well as refuse to actually provide your point, yet you expect others to provide the same stuff.:rolleyes:

No, I tell you what has informed my opinion, and you tell me what has informed yours. Yours happen to be studies. So I'm asking you to detail them, and then link to them

But included in this post is a long list of studies that actually compare same sex couples with comparable straight couples in various different ways using different sample sizes all of which have passed strict peer review.
Please provide evidence that all of these studies are tainted by bias or use inadequate sample size.

Yeah, I was just wondering about the particular points that convinced YOU. The points from the studies that stood out and made you think, thats it I'm convinced. Also, what was it you were convinced of? That Fathers and mothers are unimportant? That children of same sex parents are as happy as children of nuclear family set up? How do you rate how they rated 'happiness'. Did you find any issues like the info supplied was based on answers given by people with a vested interest in a certain outcome? Or was everything about the studies that convinced you in particular flaw free in your opinion? Did you find that the sample surveyed was reliable, random, statistically meaningful etc? that kind of thing. I'd like to see your thought on these studies which have so convinced you. Of course no bother if you don't wish to talk about it. Thats your prerogative.

Strawman argument.
No one is arguing that men and women aren't different.
No one is arguing that different people don't parent differently.

Clever what you did there, maybe even dishonest:eek: I never said people argued what you claim above. What you are arguing is that in general, MEN and WOMEN don't in general parent differently.

We are arguing that there are no differences in parenting that are exclusive between genders and are beneficial in a straight couple.

Thats exacly what I said but you called it a strawman. Do you even read your posts? haha.

We don't believe these exist because you've not being able to point to any, let alone back them up.

Funnily enough, I've alluded to some if you were paying attention.

But that does not imply that both a mother and a father are required or more beneficial.

Indeed, but if we can get you to the point of at least acknowledging the difference, then we can discuss if they are important.

But again how can you possibly comment on what a gay couple can and cannot provide when you know absolutely zero about them?

Because if we know that men and women provide different parenting styles in general, and that they are important, then it goes without saying that two men, or two women cannot provide the fullness of parenting that a man and woman can. Do you seriously not see how this is implied? Like seriously?

Bigot:
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
You regard gay parents as inferiour to straight parents. You are basing this soley on your own opinion which you've admitted is totally ill-informed and rejecting all conflicting opinion and science that might try to inform you.
You are by definition a bigot.

Really? That reasoning has established the FACT that I'm a bigot? ha ha:D
First of all, could you point out where I said gay parents were inferior parents to straight parents?

Second of all, do you think paedophiles should be allowed be in charge of scouting trips? No? Well then you are intolerantly devoted to your own opinions, so you are a bigot KM. You talk some sh1te KM. Lol.

Seriously though, you're bigot accusation is absolutely retarded, but I realise you put yourself out on a limb when you threw the word at me in your frustration. Not everyone likes the taste of humble pie, but I understand. There does seem to be a certain programming, brain washing if you will, in terms of people name calling when people have any objections to questioning the political agendas of LGBT groups. It reminds me of people being shouted down as racist if they express immigration concerns. Lazy, political weasel terms. they work tremendously well though, as people do seem to run scared of them. Thankfully I'm not one of them.

You are a liar because you've claimed that some studies concluded something that they could not possibly conclude.

Could you show this claim?

If you claim something that isn't true, it's defined as a lie.

Actually, if you claim something that isn't true, while knowing its not true, THATS a lie. A very important difference. But I'm happy to chip away at your ignorance, no need to thank me.

A liar is someone who lies.

Well I never.

Further there are numerous examples of you ignoring points while containing you use arguments that those points debunk, using dishonest tactics like shifting the goalposts and strawmaning and of course admitting to feigning a disagreement to avoid a point you can't answer.

You see, this is not backing up your accusation, its just restating your accusation. I'm beginning to think even these studies that convinced you, you probably didn't even read. Maybe you had a political ideology already, and you looked at a study that concluded what you wanted it to, it was peer reviewed so you thought, 'That'll do'. Hows my aim?

Seriously if you think you're being honest in this debate you need a long hard look at yourself.

A more honest man ye wont meet KM!............. Or am I lying? Muwahhh ha ha ha ha.

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

Sorry, you're right. I meant to say gay adoption. Apologies.

I think we've all established by now that JimiTime's only objection to gay adoption is that men are better at reading maps than women, something which is of course vital to the upbringing of a child.

Well you don't want kids getting lost on the way to school now do we?

JimiTime

Sarky wrote: »

That's a whole lot of pages of JimiTime waving his hands vaguely and finding new ways to disguise his prejudices. I wish I'd bought popcorn yesterday

Welcome to the show, I'm here til Sunday. Try the fish, and don't forget to tip yer waitress

28064212

Since you've ceded all knowledge on studies to the "study junkies" (and the fact that you think increasing knowledge on a subject through the scientific method is something to be mocked speaks volumes), why don't you accept it when those junkies inform you that the studies that are supposed to magically back up your point don't exist? Instead you just go on and on about "biases" (even though the only posted studies which have been shown to be biased are the ones you posted). You can't have it both ways. You can't claim we're the study experts, then tell us we don't know enough about studies.

I finally figured out what you remind me of. It's the lowest common denominator social conservatives of the republican party in the US. You know the facts are against you. You know that in a straight-up debate that actually analyses and looks at the issue from all angles, you've already lost.

So you drag down the level of discourse. You do everything you can to make it look like it's just two entrenched sides engaging in yet another knock-down drag-out fight, where both sides are as bad as each other. If you actually engaged in a sensible discussion, you'd lose, and you know it

NuMarvel

koth wrote: »

That's an argument against sat-navs, not gay marriage :pac:

Hold on... don't most sat navs have a woman's voice as the default option? That's clearly just political opportunism being spun as equality and runs contrary to what "real science" has proven.

This must be stopped IMMEDIATELY!

Sarky

JimiTime wrote: »

Welcome to the show, I'm here til Sunday. Try the fish, and don't forget to tip yer waitress

Perhaps you could just admit you have nothing but your own prejudice to back your laughable position and apologise for wasting everyone's time instead?

Bannasidhe

NuMarvel wrote: »

Hold on... don't most sat navs have a woman's voice as the default option? That's clearly just political opportunism being spun as equality and runs contrary to what "real science" has proven.

This must be stopped IMMEDIATELY!

Any sat-nav I've ever encountered results in this woman's voice being heard yelling at that woman's voice that the route she is insisting is the best one is not in fact the best route as if we cut onto the R513 we can go to Mitchelstown via Hospital then zip down the M8 and avoid the nightmare that is Buttevant. Says it right here on the map this woman is reading....

JimiTime

Sarky wrote: »

Perhaps you could just admit you have nothing but your own prejudice to back your laughable position and apologise for wasting everyone's time instead?

I'm not forcing anyone to respond to anything am I? I thought people were voluntarily giving up their own time. Again, its surreal that the position, 'Mothers and fathers are important' is now 'Laughable'. Crazy stuff altogether:)

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Well you don't want kids getting lost on the way to school now do we?

And yet, it's mostly mothers (the ones who aren't good at map reading) who drop their children to school.

Argument defeated.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not forcing anyone to respond to anything am I? I thought people were voluntarily giving up their own time. Again, its surreal that the position, 'Mothers and fathers are important' is now 'Laughable'. Crazy stuff altogether:)

The position that mothers and fathers are so important that any variation should be prevented is laughable.

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

And yet, it's mostly mothers (the ones who aren't good at map reading) who drop their children to school.

Argument defeated.

Your view that mostly mothers drop kids to school is just based on your own personal biases. Show me the study, SHOW ME THE STUDY!

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

Your view that mostly mothers drop kids to school is just based on your own personal biases. Show me the study, SHOW ME THE STUDY!

Yet another post showing that you just don't "get it". You think you're parodying a position, but you're actually responding to a totally different point that no-one has made