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

newmug wrote: »

Explain why its offensive. Break it down for me. And list for me, point-by-point, what it has to do with the Church or why its the Church's fault.

You suggested that a gay man is "not quite a man." Regardless of what you may think the shocking truth is gay men and women are as normal as everyone else, the only difference, they prefer the sexual company of the same sex, that is all.

Gareth Thomas of the Welsh Rugby team. Totally effeminate.



Obvious pansy.

newmug wrote: »

I wonder how many people on here are the parents of gays, angry that their boy turned out not quite a man, but definately not a woman either, and they're turning that anger towards the Church, an easy scapegoat? Quite a few I'd say.

none I'd say, would you think that if their boy turned out to be a great artist or soccer player or atheist or criminal they would blame/praise the church ?

newmug wrote: »

I fully agree. Yet here we are, on the Christianity forum where we should be talking about the Bible and how many Rosaries you said today, and its being absolutely swamped by non-believing, anti-christian doctrine subscribers telling us Christians we're intolerant, wrong, bigoted, bullying people, and that all discrimination faced by homosexuals is somehow derived from Christianity (and in particular, the RCC). In any other forum, that would be called trolling.

You're raising some points that I would like to reply to and I think are relevant to the thread. But you're only raising them because you don't like the topic of homosexuality being discussed in the Christian forum, so it probably would be futile to progress the conversation.

The mods have already made clear that they have the final decision on what threads should be in what forums. If you don't like that, continually bringing it up in-thread won't help your case.

As the mods might have to do a spring clean of the last few pages, I'm going to lighten their load a little hold off on replying to anymore of your posts. If they're still here tomorrow, and subject to whatever instructions the mods might issue, I'll reply then.

Newmug (or any christian for that matter), do you think your views on civil laws should be based on your religious views and your religions teachings?

G.K. wrote: »

Can you backup your three assertions there?

Ok. 1) It is SOCIAL science, as it is ehhh, social science.

2) It is statistically meaningless because there is not even close enough to a big enough sample population.

3) The studies mostly deal with lesbian women.

Whatever your political agendas and ideologies, and no matter how confident you are in them, to allow for children to be adopted by couples other than nuclear couples, is a social experiment. This renders the kids guinea pigs in a social experiment.

Gumbi wrote: »

That wasn't the questions.

Keeping in mind you have spewed one baseless assertion after another in this thread, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that it is, perhaps, your religious prejudices informing you.

Only in a very skewed world is it considered baseless, laughable, and bigoted (all the explaintives used thus far) to say that a father and a mother are important to a child. Rather than me being prejudiced, I think it is you that has been blinded by a political idolelogy to see what is glaringly obvious. In fact, if anyone is being religiously minded in this, I would say its those that ignore the concerns of the child, in favour of their politik

JimiTime wrote: »

Since when is it a religious matter to believe a father and a mother are not inconsequential, but important to a child?

While I was looking for newmug's input as they seem to hold homosexuality unchristian I did ask for input from any Christian. Though I hope you understand if I exclude yourself on the grounds that you pretend to believe one thing when you actually believe another...

Sorry to have posted about apples and oranges last week and then not remained to respond. I have been moving house and not only do I not have internet at home at the moment, the rural setting renders most mobile phones unusable! Thanks to 28064212 who followed up questions concerning my analogy.

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.

In this situation, I don't see that it is "ideal" to eat both apples and oranges. By this, I mean that it isn't a logical conclusion that necessarily emerges from your premises.

For example, from the premises, we don't have information about how good each fruit actually is in contributing to the health of those bodily systems. If an apple only provides 1% of the vitamin required to keep your kidneys healthy, yet an orange provides 50% of the vitamin required for a good immune system, might it not be better to eat two oranges and have at least one system fully functioning, with negligible detriment to kidney health? We don't have enough information on the relative importance of maintaining, say, good kidney health versus maintaining a good immune system. And as has already been pointed out, what happens if the oranges you are eating are natural bit higher in kidney-nourishing vitamins than usual oranges?

Now, of course, the above situation lacks any biological basis - we are simply extrapolating in a thought experiment from a given amount of information. We can, with very little effort, actually determine whether two oranges is as good for people as one apple/one orange or two apples. We can measure the physiological health of those who eat both, and of those who eat only one or the other.

It seems, from my literature searches, that it is generally agreed that oranges are better for you than apples, and if you need to choose, choose oranges. That's not intended to be my point though - it's incidental that maybe two oranges are better for you that one apple and one orange. My point is that your conclusion is not supported by your limited premises. We need to study the effects of diet in children to draw a conclusion.

Of course, there are studies to compare the development of children brought up under different parental systems. However, your new tactic appears to be to reject these studies as merely "social sciences" and therefore not worthy of consideration. It might be worth remembering that is it "social science" which has given you a functional political system, a modern education system, the laws under which you operate and the economic structure that pays your salary.

So to move onto some of your other points.

You keep interchanging the phrases "father and mother" with "father and mother/male and female roles". I do not consider these as interchangeable. I am perfectly content to say that neither a "mother or father" is necessary for the healthy development of a child. There are prominent posters on this thread who attest to the truth of that (assuming they are nice people in real life!) and many examples in our own social circles, I'm sure.

When we discuss the "roles of a mother and father" (not the gender of the people themselves), this is where you miss the point entirely. If we go with your chosen gender-specific skill of map-reading, let's assume (reasonably) that being able to map-read is a useful (if not necessary) skill to acquire in life. Now, is it true that men are usually better at map-reading than women? Maybe, I'm happy to accept that, there are studies to suggest so. It is true that a given man is likely to be better at map-reading than a given woman? Well, that follows from the first observation. Is it is true that all men are better at map-reading than all women? Absolutely not.

Like The B-sidhe, I can read a map perfectly competently - I don't even have to turn it around as I change direction In fact, as I've said before and to stereotype, I'm a fairly "man" girl all round. I have just spent a week wielding power tools, I drink pints of lager while watching football (and I can explain the offside rule), I don't cook very well and I'm uncomfortable with displays of emotion. With my girlfriends, I'm never a shoulder to cry on, I'm the one who installs your new surround sound.

Rather ironic that the ideal balance to my specific personality traits would be more likely to be found in a female. Go figure, I reckon I'd make a better parent if there was a "stereotypical" girl at my side. Isn't that strange? :rolleyes:

PS - sorry for the massive post.

G.K. wrote: »

I said backup, not say again.

I'm wondering about these studies that deal mainly with lesbian women - are there many studies on lesbian men?

Compulsory education for all children? Was that a social experiment too?