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

23-08-2012 11:53AM

PDN wrote: »

However, after people started accusing anyone who disagreed with them of being bigots and homophobes, any reasonable Christian posters have left the thread, and that is unfortunate.

Other than JimiTime (who was openly trolling), what posters have been called bigots or homophobes? And if people were making false accusations, why weren't they moderated?

Since JimiTime entered the thread with his nonsense, all possibility of a reasonable discussion stopped. But that is the fault of one poster, which is no surprise, since it was his stated intention.

JimiTime · 23-08-2012 05:48PM

28064212 wrote: »

Other than JimiTime (who was openly trolling), what posters have been called bigots or homophobes? And if people were making false accusations, why weren't they moderated?

Since JimiTime entered the thread with his nonsense, all possibility of a reasonable discussion stopped. But that is the fault of one poster, which is no surprise, since it was his stated intention.

Baseless insults?? Here?? Well I never!

Way to go for exemplifying what PDN described btw.:)

So now, as well as bigoted and laughable I can add nonsense to the views expressed here if someone believes a mother and a father are not inconsequential to a child. What a strange world we are entering into.

23-08-2012 05:56PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Baseless insults?? Here?? Well I never!

Way to go for exemplifying what PDN described btw.:)

So now, as well as bigoted and laughable I can add nonsense to the views expressed here if someone believes a mother and a father are not inconsequential to a child. What a strange world we are entering into.

So do you realise you're making a strawman there or are you doing it inadvertently?

We're not saying you are a bigot for believing mother and a father are not inconsequential to a child or whatever you've moved the goalposts to.
We are saying you are a bigot for claiming that homosexual parents are inferior then being unable and unwilling to back up that claim and making it very very clear that such an opinion is based on your own narrow, wilfully ignorant and willfully dishonest opinion.

Please don't pretend otherwise.

23-08-2012 05:59PM

JimiTime wrote: »

So now, as well as bigoted and laughable I can add nonsense to the views expressed here if someone believes a mother and a father are not inconsequential to a child. What a strange world we are entering into.

Nope, wrong again Jimi. I said you brought nonsense to this thread, I didn't say anything about a particular viewpoint being nonsensical

JimiTime · 23-08-2012 06:05PM

28064212 wrote: »

Nope, wrong again Jimi. I said you brought nonsense to this thread, I didn't say anything about a particular viewpoint being nonsensical

Ah right, you did indeed. And of course because you said it, so it must be true. Gotcha;):)

JimiTime · 23-08-2012 06:16PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't think that's a very fair comment. Particular posters have only attracted such labels when they have consistently failed to offer any rational defence of their position. If that doesn't make one a bigot, what does?

Don't make me laugh! Rational?? The whole concept of burden of proof has been twisted by people so that they can rest in their positions. The burden is on YOU to tell us that mothers and fathers are no longer of consequence, and as there is not even near a relevant sample population to study, you can't. However, because you hold a certain political ideology (which is fair enough), you want to be able to have an objective source to add weight to your ideology. It is dishonest to start saying that this view is based on 'science' though. As I've said from the start, which everyone threw their toys out of their pram about, is that the answer really needs to arise from yourselves. You have already made the leap into believing this is an equal rights issue etc, so its more difficult for you. The only way your skewed views will be healed is if you look around and realise that implicitly and explicitly men and women effect their children differently. Good parents are invaluable, and if we are able to give a child to good parents that will provide both male and female role models THAT is an undeniable ideal.

23-08-2012 06:20PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Don't make me laugh! Rational?? The whole concept of burden of proof has been twisted by people so that they can rest in their positions. The burden is on YOU to tell us that mothers and fathers are no longer of consequence

Lol, how? Every single study that disagrees with you is biased, for reasons you won't go into. In fact you won't even read the studies to explain how they're flawed. You talk about shifting the burden of proof? You've already said you won't accept anything we do that addresses that burden. Oh wait, I forgot, we can just "look around".

And once again, the thread is totally derailed and reasonable discussion is impossible. And it's not by anybody using labels like bigotry

23-08-2012 06:21PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Don't make me laugh! Rational?? The whole concept of burden of proof has been twisted by people so that they can rest in their positions. The burden is on YOU to tell us that mothers and fathers are no longer of consequence, and as there is not even near a relevant sample population to study, you can't. However, because you hold a certain political ideology (which is fair enough), you want to be able to have an objective source to add weight to your ideology. It is dishonest to start saying that this view is based on 'science' though.

Again you have been provided with an extensive list of studies refuting your position.
You were invited to detail what issues you had with there methodology and support your assertion that there is not a large enough sample size.
You however did neither.
This is because you are just rejecting them out of hand and lying to suit your political needs.
If this is not case, it's not to late for you to detail the issues you had with the studies and support your position.

JimiTime · 23-08-2012 06:36PM

28064212 wrote: »

Lol, how? Every single study that disagrees with you is biased,

That is a facsimile of what I said.

In fact you won't even read the studies.

What study convinced you? Which particular details made you think, 'I'm convinced now that mothers and fathers are inconsequential'? What did you think of the sample group and can you detail it? Were you happy that it was statistically relevant? Was/is there any doubts about the accuracy of it in your mind? How did they define 'happiness'? Were you happy at what counted for well rounded and could you detail how this was assertained?

You talk about shifting the burden of proof? You've already said you won't accept anything we do that addresses that burden.

Nothing exists. It can't, as the sample population is much to small. Ceratinly nothing that can make one can give one the arrogance to assert that anyone disagreeing is a bigot or laughable thats for sure.

And once again, the thread is totally derailed and reasonable discussion is impossible. And it's not by anybody using labels like bigotry

Indeed, its derailed by the pretence that your side of the argument is arrived at by scientific research, when in reality its a political ideology.

I think when someone maintains the view that a mother and a father is not inconsequential and is met with accusations of bigotry, the view being laughable etc, it is easy to see that being reasonable is indeed a challenge.

Turtwig · 23-08-2012 06:51PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Don't make me laugh! Rational?? The whole concept of burden of proof has been twisted by people so that they can rest in their positions. The burden is on YOU to tell us that mothers and fathers are no longer of consequence, and as there is not even near a relevant sample population to study, you can't. However, because you hold a certain political ideology (which is fair enough), you want to be able to have an objective source to add weight to your ideology. It is dishonest to start saying that this view is based on 'science' though. As I've said from the start, which everyone threw their toys out of their pram about, is that the answer really needs to arise from yourselves. You have already made the leap into believing this is an equal rights issue etc, so its more difficult for you. The only way your skewed views will be healed is if you look around and realise that implicitly and explicitly men and women effect their children differently. Good parents are invaluable, and if we are able to give a child to good parents that will provide both male and female role models THAT is an undeniable ideal.

Jimi

In the society I grew up in. Most girls were handed baby dolls, cookery and arts sets. The boys were given action figures, video games, remote controls cars etc. So it's not really all that surprising to me that gender influences would appear different. The boy's upbringing was markedly different from the girl. So the boy that grows up to be a father would likely have very different influences, experiences and interests than the girl would have. Now, I'm sure you'd probably agree that if you swapped the roles and gave a girl completely 'boy' toys. You'd still end up with a girl being a girl. Only this girl, experience wise and interest wise would be likely be very different. Would this 'Tomboy' of a girl be the ideal mother? Would she have the stuff in her, even when married to a man, to be the ideal parent?

I'm going to ask you now to be very specific. How much of a parents' gender is actually relevant to the child's upbringing? If the toys can be different, why1 not the parents? Or are you one of those people who won't get an RC car or electronics kit for their daughter?

Actor · 23-08-2012 06:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed, its derailed by the pretence that your side of the argument is arrived at by scientific research, when in reality its a political ideology.

Exactly.

To these people scientific understanding is their god. If they can't reproduce something in a laboratory, they dismiss its relevance to their lives. Of course when it comes to homosexuals and children, science doesn't offer them any solutions. So they have to paste over the gaping hole (no pun intended) in their rationale by forcing gay "marriage" to be a socio-political issue. Anyone who disagrees with them is a "bigot", "right wing" or a "religious nut".

Actor · 23-08-2012 06:55PM

Jernal wrote: »

In the society I grew up in. Most girls were handed baby dolls, cookery and arts sets. The boys were given action figures, video games, remote controls cars etc.

Shock horror!

You're the very type who writes in to complain to RTE and the Late Late Toy Show with their "gender stereotyping".

The poor kids. Sure it's child abuse is what it tis. They should have more "rights" and parents should be forced to make Jimmy wear a dress for fear of not being seen to tow the pro-homosexual line. What would the neighbours say!

NuMarvel · 23-08-2012 08:10PM

Actor wrote: »

Exactly.

To these people scientific understanding is their god. If they can't reproduce something in a laboratory, they dismiss its relevance to their lives. Of course when it comes to homosexuals and children, science doesn't offer them any solutions. So they have to paste over the gaping hole (no pun intended) in their rationale by forcing gay "marriage" to be a socio-political issue. Anyone who disagrees with them is a "bigot", "right wing" or a "religious nut".

Science can provide plenty of solutions to couples who can't have children through traditional means. And if science is unable to help, there's adoption.

And no one is forcing civil marriage to be a socio-political issue. It already is. It's a social construct, regulated by political means via laws and regulations. Thousands of couples enter into civil marriages every year, it's not exactly new.

Actor · 23-08-2012 08:13PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Science can provide plenty of solutions to couples who can't have children through traditional means. And if science is unable to help, there's adoption.

Science doesn't create new life. Nor does it create babies to be given up for adoption. Science is to do with theorising, observing and repeating. God creates new life. Science is not an end in itself - it is a gift from the Creator. A means of rationalising the universe for the benefit of all mankind.

NuMarvel · 23-08-2012 08:23PM

Actor wrote: »

Science doesn't create new life. Nor does it create babies to be given up for adoption.

And what part of that statement is unique or particular to same sex couples? It sounds like your issue is with the boundaries of science, not homosexuality. Yes, some gay couples will be the beneficiaries of this type of science, but so too will heterosexual couples who are unable to have children in the traditional fashion.

So, to be clear, is your issue with the science in the first place regardless of who benefits, or is it just that gay couples could be beneficiaries?

23-08-2012 10:09PM

JimiTime wrote: »

That is a facsimile of what I said.

Eyyy, whaddya know, something we agree on. Although I suspect, as per usual, you do not understand what you are talking about.

JimiTime wrote: »

What study convinced you? Which particular details made you think, 'I'm convinced now that mothers and fathers are inconsequential'? What did you think of the sample group and can you detail it? Were you happy that it was statistically relevant? Was/is there any doubts about the accuracy of it in your mind? How did they define 'happiness'? Were you happy at what counted for well rounded and could you detail how this was assertained?

More of the usual. Even though you've already dismissed studies in general, it's my responsibility to provide studies you will dismiss out of hand. I'll tell you what, when you analyse the studies you've already been provided with, I'll answer your questions

JimiTime wrote: »

it is easy to see that being reasonable is indeed a challenge.

Only by you. There were some Christians who were willing to enter a debate. You were not, as you've made clear

ShooterSF · 24-08-2012 02:43AM

I don't think this thread started out much better than it is now. I went back and read the first two (40 posts pp) pages and it's discussions over leviticus (not that religion has any place in civil marriage) and the two other repeated points; Marriage means you need to be able to reproduce (no response made to the usual points of infertile parents etc.) and adopted children need a mother and father again without any further explanation than Jimitime has offered to be fair to him.

Heck even a mod on the forum could see some bigotry within those first 2 pages so it's not just us. And to be fair to him he was responding to a poster who used the phrase and I'd also like to take the time to point out his entire post is quite refreshing.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

When it comes to gay marriage / civil partnerships, I find it amazing how the public mood has shifted in such a short space of time. I don't think that any previous movement of a similar nature (female suffrage, racial equality) made such progress in such a short space of time. It's also worth noting that polls show younger evangelical Christians differ from their elders in that they are far more likely to favour recognition of same sex marriage. So despite the fact that some posters here persist in posts that begin with "Christians believe..." there is no uniform Christian position on this. I think there are few bigots in this forum, in that I believe that one can read the Bible and reach a conscientious decision that homosexual relationships are wrong, provided that you don't seek to deny civil liberties to others. For what it's worth, I've read plenty to persuade me that the Bible has little or nothing to say about committed and loving same-sex relationships as they exist today.

PDN · 24-08-2012 09:04AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't think this thread started out much better than it is now. I went back and read the first two (40 posts pp) pages and it's discussions over leviticus (not that religion has any place in civil marriage) and the two other repeated points; Marriage means you need to be able to reproduce (no response made to the usual points of infertile parents etc.) and adopted children need a mother and father again without any further explanation than Jimitime has offered to be fair to him.

Heck even a mod on the forum could see some bigotry within those first 2 pages so it's not just us. And to be fair to him he was responding to a poster who used the phrase and I'd also like to take the time to point out his entire post is quite refreshing.

You're missing my point. No-one is denying that bigots exist (on both sides of the debate IMHO), or that they pop up in this forum now and again. And have you stopped to wonder where such 'refreshing posts' have gone?

There are a large number of Christians, including many who post regularly in this forum, who would love to engage in a reasonable discussion on this whole subject. Most of them see homosexual acts as incompatible with being a practising Christian - but others don't see a problem there. Some were opposed to the Civil Partnership Bill, while others were very vocal and public in supporting it. Some oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage - others support it in all but name but would prefer it if another term was used. Others have no problem with same-sex marriage.

There is also a legitimate debate about how the Old Testament passages )eg Leviticus) should be read by Christians today, as well as the exegesis of New Testament passages that refer to homosexuality.

However, those Christian posters who might take a more nuanced view have long departed this thread. I can't speak for others, but I can explain why I have no interest in participating in this thread as a poster.

I had said in essence, "I support same-sex civil unions with the exact same legal status as marriage, but I would prefer to keep a linguistic distinction between that and what Christians refer to when they use the word 'marriage'. I also think same-sex couples wishing to adopt should be treated the same as heterosexual couples."

Because of this I was, among other things, callled homophobic. While I enjoy discussing Christian issues, I have better things to do with my time than to expose myself to that kind of unpleasantness from fundamentalists of any persuasion. So, what has happened as a natural progression, is that anyone with any kind of nuanced appproach has gone. That leaves us with those who don't want to give an inch in their position and a straightforward shouting match along the lines of "Two legs bad - four legs good."

So, this thread has largely become an echo chamber where a number of non-Christian advocates of gay marriage interact with the occasional drive-by troll and enthusiastically thank each other's posts.

Enjoy yourself.

Benny_Cake · 24-08-2012 09:23AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Heck even a mod on the forum could see some bigotry within those first 2 pages so it's not just us. And to be fair to him he was responding to a poster who used the phrase and I'd also like to take the time to point out his entire post is quite refreshing.

Thanks for the compliment, I should probably point out that I wasn't a mod when I made that post! Looking back, I'm a little uncomfortable with using the word "bigot", I certainly don't think that everyone who holds to the more conservative Christian view necessarily does so out of bigotry (although some may). All I was trying to say is that there are a number of perspectives which Christians have on the issue, which isn't something which we should feel too uncomfortable about. It does seem that the thread has largely become a case of several posters chasing JimiTime around in circles though, with the odd outrageous and offensive remark thrown in by a passer by, which is why I've tended to step back a bit from it though!

MadsL · 24-08-2012 09:27AM

Actor wrote: »

Exactly.

To these people scientific understanding is their god. If they can't reproduce something in a laboratory, they dismiss its relevance to their lives. Of course when it comes to homosexuals and children, science doesn't offer them any solutions. So they have to paste over the gaping hole (no pun intended) in their rationale by forcing gay "marriage" to be a socio-political issue. Anyone who disagrees with them is a "bigot", "right wing" or a "religious nut".

Or it could just be that they are showing human compassion and understanding, rather than enforcing lesser status and loss of dignity because of their personal sexual ethics

PDN wrote: »

There is also a legitimate debate about how the Old Testament passages )eg Leviticus) should be read by Christians today, as well as the exegesis of New Testament passages that refer to homosexuality.

Is there now? That's funny, as you and I had quite an interesting exchange recently about that where you said "The New Testament speaks against homosexuality in no uncertain terms." and I said pretty much what you have said above. I'm happy see you are learning something in this debate.

So, this thread has largely become an echo chamber where a number of non-Christian advocates of gay marriage interact with the occasional drive-by troll and enthusiastically thank each other's posts.

Enjoy yourself.

If you will permit me to discuss this thread and moderation for a second as you bring it up. This thread is I fear a ghetto of your own making, how about allowing reasonable discussion of 'progressive' views in other threads? The problem at the moment is that any discussion of homosexuality is deleted, including the exegesis of what Paul was talking about, or is binned to this thread, the After Hours of Christianity.

To be honest, I wonder why you don't follow Soccer's example and make access private, it might suit you better.

PDN · 24-08-2012 09:40AM

MadsL wrote: »

Is there now? That's funny, as you and I had quite an interesting exchange recently about that where you said "The New Testament speaks against homosexuality in no uncertain terms." and I said pretty much what you have said above. I'm happy see you are learning something in this debate.

The NT does speak against homosexual acts in no uncertain terms. And there could be an interesting debate about the exegesis involved in that. But that's unlikely where posters are more interested in twisting one another's words than they are in listening to each other.

If you will permit me to discuss this thread and moderation for a second as you bring it up. This thread is I fear a ghetto of your own making, how about allowing reasonable discussion of 'progressive' views in other threads? The problem at the moment is that any discussion of homosexuality is deleted, including the exegesis of what Paul was talking about, or is binned to this thread, the After Hours of Christianity.

Unfortunately, minority groups have a tendency to make everything all about them. therefore we need specific threads to stop the whole forum being hijacked. The same thing occurred with Creationists, atheists, Catholic/Protestant fundamentalists, and those who always wanted to turn everything into a discussion of clerical child abuse.

To be honest, I wonder why you don't follow Soccer's example and make access private, it might suit you better.

You greatly overestimate my powers and influence.

MadsL · 24-08-2012 09:44AM

PDN wrote: »

The NT does speak against homosexual acts in no uncertain terms. And there could be an interesting debate about the exegesis involved in that. But that's unlikely where posters are more interested in twisting one another's words than they are in listening to each other.

Will I start a thread?

I would be interested in an academic discussion of the evolution of the church's position, but I appreciate the pain in the ass it would be to mod such a discussion.

Unfortunately, minority groups have a tendency to make everything all about them. therefore we need specific threads to stop the whole forum being hijacked. The same thing occurred with Creationists, atheists, Catholic/Protestant fundamentalists, and those who always wanted to turn everything into a discussion of clerical child abuse.

Point taken.

MadsL · 24-08-2012 09:45AM

PDN wrote: »

You greatly overestimate my powers and influence.

I meant the Christianity mods as a whole and the CMods, rather than you personally...I could see the argument for it.

doctoremma · 24-08-2012 09:59AM

So, given that there are Christians who support gay marriage (or, at least, recognise its legitimacy), and given the apparent explicit sanctions against homosexuality in both the OT and NT, how do those Christians justify their stance? A simple matter of not making others live by your own rules? How might that change when talking with a gay Christian?

MadsL · 24-08-2012 10:11AM

doctoremma wrote: »

So, given that there are Christians who support gay marriage (or, at least, recognise its legitimacy), and given the apparent explicit sanctions against homosexuality in both the OT and NT, how do those Christians justify their stance? A simple matter of not making others live by your own rules? How might that change when talking with a gay Christian?

In the US a growing majority of Catholics support gay rights.

A new report from the Public Religion Research Institute suggests a majority of Catholics are supportive of gay and lesbian rights.
The report, which was released today, found that 43 percent of Catholics favored allowing gay and lesbian people to marry; 31 percent favored allowing them to form civil unions. 22 percent said there should be no legal recognition of a gay relationship.
Here are a few more findings from the report:
— Only 39 percent of Catholics give their church top marks for its treatment of the issue of homosexuality.
— 56 percent of Catholics believe that homosexual sex is not a sin.
— When marriage is defined as a civil marriage “like you get at city hall,” 71 percent of Catholics support it.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/american-catholics-support-gay-marriage/

Benny_Cake · 24-08-2012 10:23AM

MadsL wrote: »

In the US a growing majority of Catholics support gay rights.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/american-catholics-support-gay-marriage/

It should also be pointed out that the Evangelical Alliance here in Ireland has backed civil partnership rights for same sex couples (link).

PDN · 24-08-2012 11:22AM

doctoremma wrote: »

So, given that there are Christians who support gay marriage (or, at least, recognise its legitimacy), and given the apparent explicit sanctions against homosexuality in both the OT and NT, how do those Christians justify their stance? A simple matter of not making others live by your own rules?

Basically yes. Most Christians, and particularly those who take a more conservative view of the Bible, believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with being a practising follower of Jesus Christ.

However, most Christians also recognise that they live in secular pluralist societies, and that it is not the place of the law to enforce Christian moral standards upon others. It might be easier to grasp this point if we think of a subject that is less emotionally charged than homosexuality.

Christians believe that the worship of false gods is sinful and contrary to the Ten Commandments. Therefore, it would be incompatible for a practising Christian to participate in prayers that involve burning incense and praying to Krishna or Vishnu. However, no Christian (other than a real nutjob of a zealot) would argue that Hinduism should be illegal or that Hindu weddings should be banned by the State.

doctoremma · 24-08-2012 11:36AM

PDN wrote: »

Basically yes. Most Christians, and particularly those who take a more conservative view of the Bible, believe that homosexual acts are incompatible with being a practising follower of Jesus Christ.

However, most Christians also recognise that they live in secular pluralist societies, and that it is not the place of the law to enforce Christian moral standards upon others. It might be easier to grasp this point if we think of a subject that is less emotionally charged than homosexuality.

Christians believe that the worship of false gods is sinful and contrary to the Ten Commandments. Therefore, it would be incompatible for a practising Christian to participate in prayers that involve burning incense and praying to Krishna or Vishnu. However, no Christian (other than a real nutjob of a zealot) would argue that Hinduism should be illegal or that Hindu weddings should be banned by the State.

Thanks PDN.

Would you be prepared to discuss how to deal with the objections raised by those who believe the whole of society should live by their own religious standards? Is this something better approached with "from within", by more moderate Christians? Or do the secularists (both religious and none) simply ignore them and push the laws through?

ShooterSF · 24-08-2012 11:44AM

PDN wrote: »

You're missing my point. No-one is denying that bigots exist (on both sides of the debate IMHO), or that they pop up in this forum now and again. And have you stopped to wonder where such 'refreshing posts' have gone?

There are a large number of Christians, including many who post regularly in this forum, who would love to engage in a reasonable discussion on this whole subject. Most of them see homosexual acts as incompatible with being a practising Christian - but others don't see a problem there. Some were opposed to the Civil Partnership Bill, while others were very vocal and public in supporting it. Some oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage - others support it in all but name but would prefer it if another term was used. Others have no problem with same-sex marriage.

There is also a legitimate debate about how the Old Testament passages )eg Leviticus) should be read by Christians today, as well as the exegesis of New Testament passages that refer to homosexuality.

However, those Christian posters who might take a more nuanced view have long departed this thread. I can't speak for others, but I can explain why I have no interest in participating in this thread as a poster.

I had said in essence, "I support same-sex civil unions with the exact same legal status as marriage, but I would prefer to keep a linguistic distinction between that and what Christians refer to when they use the word 'marriage'. I also think same-sex couples wishing to adopt should be treated the same as heterosexual couples."

Because of this I was, among other things, callled homophobic. While I enjoy discussing Christian issues, I have better things to do with my time than to expose myself to that kind of unpleasantness from fundamentalists of any persuasion. So, what has happened as a natural progression, is that anyone with any kind of nuanced appproach has gone. That leaves us with those who don't want to give an inch in their position and a straightforward shouting match along the lines of "Two legs bad - four legs good."

So, this thread has largely become an echo chamber where a number of non-Christian advocates of gay marriage interact with the occasional drive-by troll and enthusiastically thank each other's posts.

Enjoy yourself.

I guess discussions on this topic do get very heated as it's not like some theoretical discussions that come up from time to time. This one affects real real people and it can be hard to bite your tongue and be civil when you meet even the arguments put forward on the first two pages! Though I do intend to read more through the thread.

I suppose the mixing of 2 very different conversations which fairly fall under the thread title might be doing it harm too to be fair. Christians' views on the rights and wrongs of homosexuality within Christianity and the topic of homosexual civil marriage are completely different topics and putting them together might have been a mistake imho even if I understand your reasoning for this thread.

Since you offered your pov and I haven't come across it yet in the thread I must remark. It's strange to me that people would hold such a point of view when we already have heterosexual civil marriage in the state which has nothing to do with religion. It seems an odd stance considering you are open to gay adoption as I've only ever seen it made as a way to prevent said adoption i.e all the same rights as marriage except adoption. If nothing else the refusal to let people use the word marriage when it's the exact same but in word causes pointless frustration and continues the equality debate over something as silly as semantics. For those points alone unless you see some negative result from using the term "marriage" I'd strongly suggest it would be for the better imo.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Thanks for the compliment, I should probably point out that I wasn't a mod when I made that post! Looking back, I'm a little uncomfortable with using the word "bigot", I certainly don't think that everyone who holds to the more conservative Christian view necessarily does so out of bigotry (although some may). All I was trying to say is that there are a number of perspectives which Christians have on the issue, which isn't something which we should feel too uncomfortable about. It does seem that the thread has largely become a case of several posters chasing JimiTime around in circles though, with the odd outrageous and offensive remark thrown in by a passer by, which is why I've tended to step back a bit from it though!

Again I think it's the umbrella effect of the thread trying to cover christian issues and civil issues re: homosexuality. When you can have a thread where a christian and a non-christian can discuss civil homosexual marriage and in the same thread said christian can be discussing the rights and wrongs of homosexuality in a christian context a messy crossover seems likely. No one that I know that shares my beliefs on religion has any issue about Christianity's internal views and discussions on how Christians should act. I have no problem if Christians say that it's a sin for fellow Christians to commit homosexual acts I do have an issue when they expect non-Christians to conform to this pov. Similarly if pork was illegal because it's against Jewish belief.

And before it's said to me, yes I know what forum we're in but here is the only place (well I know there are other religious forums but since our state is mostly Christians) where you can get an idea of how much separation people make between their religious beliefs and issues of state.

JimiTime · 24-08-2012 12:05PM

Jernal wrote: »

Or are you one of those people who won't get an RC car or electronics kit for their daughter?

I'll answer this one first. I was more interested in transformers and wrestlers, but I sometimes played with my sisters dolls (Ruined a few mind you), and also wore my mums high heels (For some reason it was a game as a kid where everyone would come out in their mothers giant high heels. No idea why)

My son often plays with his sisters dolls buggy, and dolls. Thats the wonderful innocence of a child. They're just playing with toys. No politics, just fun.

In the society I grew up in. Most girls were handed baby dolls, cookery and arts sets. The boys were given action figures, video games, remote controls cars etc. So it's not really all that surprising to me that gender influences would appear different. The boy's upbringing was markedly different from the girl. So the boy that grows up to be a father would likely have very different influences, experiences and interests than the girl would have. Now, I'm sure you'd probably agree that if you swapped the roles and gave a girl completely 'boy' toys. You'd still end up with a girl being a girl. Only this girl, experience wise and interest wise would be likely be very different. Would this 'Tomboy' of a girl be the ideal mother? Would she have the stuff in her, even when married to a man, to be the ideal parent?

I'm going to ask you now to be very specific. How much of a parents' gender is actually relevant to the child's upbringing? If the toys can be different, why1 not the parents?

You seem to be saying the toys make the person

Are men and women different intrinsically? You can give a man a barbie all you want, but he'll still get a dose of testosterone at puberty, a woman will still get a dose of oestrogen unless of course there are disorders afoot. This is the most obvious physiological difference I know of.
These physiological differences impact on behaviour. I gave the example earlier of how mothers and fathers react differently to the dose of oxytocin that comes with their new child. Mothers exhibit affectionate parenting behaviors, including talking “motherese”, the expression of positive affect, and affectionate touch, whereas Fathers exhibit stimulatory parenting behaviors, including proprioceptive contact, tactile stimulation, and object presentation.

The disturbing bit in the line of questioning you propose, is that there is a political ideology motivating one to find reasons to deny the differences, or at least find that they matter not. Unfortunately, those who would be motivated to carry out studies in the realm of 'Are kids as better off with same sex parents', would, I suspect, be those looking at the topic with the ideology at the fore. It saddens me, and frustrates me that this is even a question, let alone believing in the nuclear family bringing shouts of bigot and laughable etc.

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

Comments