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

Wiggles88

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.

Links234

If you think all gay guys are "not quite men"...

Sonics2k

Gareth Thomas of the Welsh Rugby team. Totally effeminate.

Obvious pansy.

newmug

Wiggles88 wrote: »

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.

No no, I didnt suggest that. Re-read the post. I asked are there any parents of gays out there who think that? Funny how you stereotyped me there! I fully agree with the rest of your post, I stated as much in one of my previous posts. So why exactly, is that the Church's fault?

Links234 wrote: »

If you think all gay guys are "not quite men"...

Haha, very good. I'm not into bigotry and namecalling though. Anyways, as I asked, are there any parents of gays who see their sons as "not quite men", and if there are, why are you angry at the Church?

Benny_Cake

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.

So a gay man is "not quite a man"? I'm interested to hear the logic behind that.

NuMarvel

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.

Scapegoating a Church for a child being gay makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, it would be like blaming Tesco because someone slipped on ice outside the cinema.

newmug wrote: »

Why? I'm only being factual. I honestly cannot get my head around why you would take offence to that. Its much the same way you cant understand how I find gayness offensive I suppose.

She was taking offence at it because you meant it in an offensive manner. Personally, I'm not concerned that I don't live up to the newmug definition of "being a man". I'm more concerned with being a decent human being. Conforming to your ancient gender stereotypes is the very last thing on my mind.

marienbad

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 ?

NuMarvel

newmug wrote: »

No no, I didnt suggest that. Re-read the post. I asked are there any parents of gays out there who think that? Funny how you stereotyped me there! I fully agree with the rest of your post, I stated as much in one of my previous posts. So why exactly, is that the Church's fault?

Haha, very good. I'm not into bigotry and namecalling though. Anyways, as I asked, are there any parents of gays who see their sons as "not quite men", and if there are, why are you angry at the Church?

You didn't ask the question. You begged the question, and then concluded there are quite a few.

How you came to that conclusion completely escapes me though. I haven't seen anyone, on either side of the discussion, post in a manner that would indicate they are angry at the Church for having a gay son.

By the way, I'm not sure why you're fixating on gay men here. Daughters can be gay too. Is someone having a gay daughter more acceptable to you than having a gay son?

newmug

NuMarvel wrote: »

Scapegoating a Church for a child being gay makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, it would be like blaming Tesco because someone slipped on ice outside the cinema.

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.

NuMarvel wrote: »

She was taking offence at it because you meant it in an offensive manner.

Did I? Is there a new "cause offence" smiley? Maybe I'M the one who's offended!

Benny_Cake

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.

Homosexuality is one of the big issues of our time from a civil rights perspective. Many people's approach to this issue is informed by their faith. If Christian perspectives on homosexuality can't be discussed here, where can they be discussed?

Also, I'm surprised that you can't see that implying that being gay makes someone any less a man or woman wouldn't be offensive to many people. It also makes very little sense, it would be like implying that someone isn't quite Irish because they never played hurling.

newmug

marienbad wrote: »

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 ?

Nope. But thats whats going on here. "The Church are ancient, evil etc. cos they comply with what their boss and founder, Jesus Christ, said about homosexuality". Its going on everywhere in society. Ask yourself why is there a gay megathread in the Christian forum of Boards?

NuMarvel wrote: »

You didn't ask the question. You begged the question, and then concluded there are quite a few.

How you came to that conclusion completely escapes me though. I haven't seen anyone, on either side of the discussion, post in a manner that would indicate they are angry at the Church for having a gay son.

By the way, I'm not sure why you're fixating on gay men here. Daughters can be gay too. Is someone having a gay daughter more acceptable to you than having a gay son?

Not fixating on anyone. According to Christian rules, gay sex is a sin. End of. Let me pose a question directly to you NuMarvel. I'll let you decide whether its "asked" or "begged". From my post history on here, do you think I'm homophobic? My guess is that your answer will be Yes.

Links234

newmug wrote: »

and that all discrimination faced by homosexuals is somehow derived from Christianity

Certainly not ALL, but a very large amount of that discrimination comes undenyably from Christianity (and other religions too), take for example the state of LGBT rights in Uganda and the "kill the gays" bill that was proposed and backed by funding from Christian groups in the US. or how Christian groups in the US funded Proposition 8 in California. those are just 2 examples of many, Christianity seems to have it's fingers in the LGBT rights debate on a global scale, and I don't think you can reasonably deny it.

NuMarvel

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

Links234 wrote: »

Certainly not ALL, but a very large amount of that discrimination comes undenyably from Christianity (and other religions too), take for example the state of LGBT rights in Uganda and the "kill the gays" bill that was proposed and backed by funding from Christian groups in the US. or how Christian groups in the US funded Proposition 8 in California. those are just 2 examples of many, Christianity seems to have it's fingers in the LGBT rights debate on a global scale, and I don't think you can reasonably deny it.

They may be Christian on paper. But as Jesus himself said, "you will know them by their deeds". These people are crackpots, and are only a handful of the 3 billion of us elsewhere in the world. They do noy represent normal Christians who are taking the backlash of all this. Just look at the amount of people on Boards who have turned away from catholicism in recent years. The nature of Christianity is to "turn the other cheek". Thats why the other 2 billion, 900 million, 900 thousand of us just say nothing and just roll with the punches. Does that make us an easy target? Darn sure it does! Does that make it fair? Its about as fair as the treatment gays get from society. Irony squared!

newmug

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

Thats reasonable NuMarvel. Its not that I dont like homosexuality being discussed on Christianity, its that its a target. Another stick to beat christians with. I started a thread once entitled "Why is there so much catholic hatred?" Search for it and have a read. I was astounded by what i read. A little bit of me died after reading it. Discussing such a black-and-white topic (from the RCC perspective) is just a religion bashing fest. Just out of interest, if there was a show of hands on this thread of Christians v non-Christians and athiests, I'd say there would be something like a 1:10 ratio. And some of the athiests / non-Christians are fairly vitriolic towards Christianity, you cannot deny that.

I sincerely hope the mods DONT spring-clean anything of the last few pages. I put forward some Christian balance to an otherwise very biased pro-homosexual thread. Those views are as valid as anyone elses, and AFAIK none broke the charter. In the spirit of co-operation, I too will hold off until we hear from the mods.

Links234

newmug wrote: »

They may be Christian on paper. But as Jesus himself said, "you will know them by their deeds". These people are crackpots, and are only a handful of the 3 billion of us elsewhere in the world. They do noy represent normal Christians who are taking the backlash of all this. Just look at the amount of people on Boards who have turned away from catholicism in recent years. The nature of Christianity is to "turn the other cheek". Thats why the other 2 billion, 900 million, 900 thousand of us just say nothing and just roll with the punches. Does that make us an easy target? Darn sure it does! Does that make it fair? Its about as fair as the treatment gays get from society. Irony squared!

as well as that being a "no true scotsman" fallacy, you do realize that by your logic, the catholic church, mormon church, as well as many more denominations then are only Christian "on paper"?

PDN

For the last time, moderation decisions can be questioned via PM, but not disputed inthread. This is stated very clearly in the Forum Charter.

Therefore, any further discussion of why this thread is in the Christianity Forum will merit infractions or, in the case of newmug since they have been infracted three times already, by a lengthy ban.

G.K.

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, its important to point out, that its SOCIAL science. Secondly, its statistically meaningless, and thirdly, its really just about lesbian women and not all the other forms an 'alternative family' can be made up of. To allow same sex adoption, is essentially allowing children to be guinea pigs.

Can you backup your three assertions there?

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, you have an issue with transgenders adopting kids?

Not in the slightest. Trans =/= Gay is all I said.

ShooterSF

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?

JimiTime

ShooterSF wrote: »

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?

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

JimiTime

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

JimiTime wrote: »

ShooterSF wrote: »

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?

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

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.

JimiTime

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

[Deleted User]

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

1) Please detail the issues you have with the methodology of the papers, or withdraw you baseless point.
2) Please provide something to back up your assertion that there is inadequate sample population or withdraw the point.
3) Just stop lying about that. The studies cover a wide range of different families. And even if they only or mostly dealt with lesbian families, so what, they still show your claim to be wrong.

Just restating something without providing support for your claims is not backing them up.

And stop using that dishonest "guinea pigs" canard. You know it's not true as the science of the issue has long been settled.
That's why you have to resort to such underhanded tactics to pretend otherwise.

ShooterSF

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...

Gumbi

JimiTime wrote: »

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

Glaringly obvious? For the umpteenth time, how is that so?

It is my very lack of a political idealology in this regard that prevents me from being prejudiced or bigoted. I am looking at a situation objectively, and seeing no reason why homosexual couples should not have children, while noting that the evidence thus far agrees with me wholly.

doctoremma

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.

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

I said backup, not say again.

Bannasidhe

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?

Actor

A child is a gift from God. It is not a "right" as many pro-homosexual campaigners testify.