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

PDN · 24-08-2012 12:18PM

doctoremma wrote: »

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?

Do you negotiate with the Taliban?

As I see it (and I am far from unbiased

) there are four main approaches taken by Christian churches and denominations towards society at large.

a) World-rejecting groups are separatists who try to keep themselves unaffected and uncorrupted by what they see as an irredeemably evil society that is going to hell in a handbasket. They are typically small groups, and ultimately their very smallness is seen as a virtue ("we are the elite remnant"). Think Fred Phelps or Jehovah's Witnesses.

b) World-affirming groups tend to mirror in their beliefs and standards pretty much what's going on in society round about them. They will happily reinterpret the Bible to fit in with societal norms. They tend to be shrinking numerically since the whole point of Christianity is that it is supposed to offer spiritual solace and salvation to those who are looking for something different from what the world offers them. Think Universalist Unitarian churches, or much of the Episcopalian Church in the US.

c) World-controlling groups see society (particularly in the West) as being in decline from a bygone golden age when everything was nicer and nearly everyone was Christian. They are used to wielding power and influence, and are very loathe for their fingers to be prised off the controls of society. They often have a siege mentality and generally spend their time trying to resist change. Think of the Christian Right in the US.

d) Other groups see themselves as World-Transforming (often this is more aspirational then actual). Their goal is to be the salt of the earth, holding before humanity a vision of a better way to live. This means primarily changing things one life at a time by persuasion rather than by legislation (but they are not adverse to seeking legislation in social justice scenarios). Think of the Salvation Army or of the wing of the Anglican Church that runs Alpha Courses.

It would be a mistake to assume that a denomination fits uniformly into any one category. For example, the Catholic Church in Ireland or in the Vatican has a past history of controlling society. But it would be a grave mistake to view the Catholic Church in the US in the same way - as their history is much more one of ministering to immigrant communities and struggling to be accepted by wider American society (just read up on the prejudices JFK had to overcome to get elected as a Catholic).

So, to get round to answering your question.

Group (b) are on your side already. Group (d) are potential allies that you will alienate if they see you lumping then in with sterotypical generaisations about Christians.

Group (a) are nutjobs. It's a waste of time talking to them. Just be grateful that their numbers are tiny and their PR is so appalling that no-one will listen to them anyway.

Group (c) is the biq question. They are numerically significant, and their siege mentality makes them suspicious. You might think you're getting somewhere in a discussion, for them to suddenly write you off as part of the great liberal secularist conspiracy. Once they start banging on about freemasons or Jews then you know they've jumped the shark into group (a).

24-08-2012 12:19PM

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

That is not the topic or conclusions of any of the studies you have been provided. It is another lie you've told to avoid the issue.

And again, if you believe that these studies are tainted, you must show exactly how or withdraw your claim.

But you're not going to do this because you have no reason to believe that those studies are tainted or invalid other than the fact you don't want them to be true.

JimiTime · 24-08-2012 12:26PM

28064212 wrote: »

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

Funnily enough, you are not the first one to duck the specific questions on them. All those studies that convinced you, yet you can't answer the questions. I never claimed that studies are what brought me to my position, you did, so I don't need to analyse them until you present your points from them.
My suspicion, is that you are motivated by political ideologies and are happy to simply know that there is a study that exists that allegedly backs it up.

No problem if you don't want to present your views on it, I get it, you didn't study the studies yourself;) I'll be ignoring your unpleasantness from here on in anyway.

24-08-2012 12:32PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Funnily enough, you are not the first one to duck the specific questions on them

The questions have been answered, numerous times, by numerous people. You've ignored them. You've been asked dozens of questions, repeatedly. You've ignored them. And you have the gall to accuse someone else of ducking a question when you won't listen to the answer anyway?

Ignore away, it's been your strategy for the last 500-odd posts on this thread, so I can't imagine you changing anytime soon

doctoremma · 24-08-2012 12:42PM

I'm slightly puzzled by the spin being whipped up that those proposing same-sex couples be allowed to marry (and become parents) carry the burden of proof and are required to show that it is not detrimental to society or child development.

The default position for this debate should be at the level of equality for all until someone can demonstrate that it is not appropriate in some way. The burden of proof therefore lies with those who wish to deny equal rights to a specific groups of people.

Nobody should have to prove themselves in order to attain equality. Equality should be assumed as the starting position.

Bannasidhe · 24-08-2012 12:44PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm slightly puzzled by the spin being whipped up that those proposing same-sex couples be allowed to marry (and become parents) carry the burden of proof and are required to show that it is not detrimental to society or child development.

The default position for this debate should be at the level of equality for all until someone can demonstrate that it is not appropriate in some way. The burden of proof therefore lies with those who wish to deny equal rights to a specific groups of people.

Nobody should have to prove themselves in order to attain equality. Equality should be assumed as the starting position.

It also ignores the existence of living, breathing, children of same-sex couples who are being denied the right to two legally recognised parents.

JimiTime · 24-08-2012 01:09PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm slightly puzzled by the spin being whipped up that those proposing same-sex couples be allowed to marry (and become parents) carry the burden of proof and are required to show that it is not detrimental to society or child development.

Well the marriage thing is not anything to do with what I'm talking about, other than asking fellow Christians to explain their objections with the use of the word. Secondly, 'detrimental' is a word I'd personally not use, though I honestly don't know. The burden of proof lies with yourselves, because it has no history. Ultimately what you are proposing is a social experiment on vulnerable children.

The default position for this debate should be at the level of equality

The default in terms of adoption, should most certainly be at the level of whats best for the child, and not socio-political topics such as equality etc.

Nobody should have to prove themselves in order to attain equality. Equality should be assumed as the starting position.

In terms of adoption, there is not equality though. there is a couple which is a man and a woman, and a person who is single or a couple who is two men, two women, or transgender etc. In order for a child to be given to a person/couple that has not been the societal norm for centuries, the burden of proof is on them to show that a mother and a father is of no consequence. There seems to be a real disregard for the fact that there is another person to consider i.e. the child.

24-08-2012 01:26PM

JimiTime wrote: »

In order for a child to be given to a person/couple that has not been the societal norm for centuries, the burden of proof is on them to show that a mother and a father is of no consequence.

And what evidence could we show to prove this?
You've already stated that you're going to ignore any personal testimony that doesn't agree with you.
You continue to claim that any studies that directly compare straight and gay couples are tainted and unreliable despite the fact you've never read a single one, never mind being able to back up your insistence.

We've provided all the evidence we need to back up our position.
But you've yet to provide an iota for your claim that straight couples are superior.

The burden of proof is now firmly in your lap.

marienbad · 24-08-2012 01:37PM

Well then lets discuss adoption from the perspective of what is best for the child .

doctoremma · 24-08-2012 01:57PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The burden of proof lies with yourselves, because it has no history.

I'm not sure the burden of proof necessarily lies with those attempting to change a historical convention. Nobody had prove scientifically that women could sensibly use a vote.

JimiTime wrote: »

Ultimately what you are proposing is a social experiment on vulnerable children.

If you wish to continue with your attempt at painting a dystopic future, I would remind you that these "experiments" have already been performed, the results are in and they're conclusive.

JimiTime wrote: »

The default in terms of adoption, should most certainly be at the level of whats best for the child, and not socio-political topics such as equality etc.

This is some kind of fallacy but I'm not sure what it's called. I think we can safely assume that everybody thinks the child comes first.

JimiTime wrote: »

In terms of adoption, there is not equality though. there is a couple which is a man and a woman, and a person who is single or a couple who is two men, two women

There is no evidence that any of these scenarios is inherently better or worse than any other. The outcomes for children, while not exactly the same, are of equal value. And let's be clear here, no two children, even when brought up by the same parental configuration, are going to have the same outcomes.

JimiTime wrote: »

In order for a child to be given to a person/couple that has not been the societal norm for centuries, the burden of proof is on them to show that a mother and a father is of no consequence. There seems to be a real disregard for the fact that there is another person to consider i.e. the child.

It has been shown to you, via several studies and combinations thereof, backed up by very explicit statements from a variety of mental health professional bodies, that the genders forming a parental unit are irrelevant to the health and happiness of the child.

We have proved it Jimi, now either you accept it, or you accept that, on this issue, you're a bigot.

JimiTime · 24-08-2012 05:32PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm not sure the burden of proof necessarily lies with those attempting to change a historical convention. Nobody had prove scientifically that women could sensibly use a vote.

So there was some sense used that did not require a scientific study? Well waddaya know.

If you wish to continue with your attempt at painting a dystopic future

NEVER have I talked about a dystopic future.

, I would remind you that these "experiments" have already been performed, the results are in and they're conclusive.

Ok, 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?

This is some kind of fallacy but I'm not sure what it's called. I think we can safely assume that everybody thinks the child comes first.

I really don't think we can. Does every man or woman that divorces their spouse believe their children come first? Do people who decide to abort their unborn children believe that the child comes first? Do women who get donors for themselves so that they can have a child, believe the child comes first? So no, we seem to be quite capable of unbelievable selfishness, so I really don't see it prudent to assume that the child comes first to everyone. The very fact that equality is brought up would suggest that the child is not the context of the discussion with some people.

There is no evidence that any of these scenarios is inherently better or worse

There isn't a meaningful sample population, so you're probably right.

The outcomes for children, while not exactly the same, are of equal value.

What do you use to define equal value? And how can you be so certain given such a small sample group? Not only that, but how can you assume that because two lesbians, one being the maternal mother is the same as two gay men etc?

It has been shown to you, via several studies and combinations thereof, backed up by very explicit statements from a variety of mental health professional bodies, that the genders forming a parental unit are irrelevant to the health and happiness of the child.

Certainly not, people have posted links to studies, but I've seen no answers to my questions regarding them. If you haven't read the studies, then don't pretend that they are what convinced you. If you want to discuss the studies, then start detailing in your own words what convinced you etc, but don't start telling me that its the science that has convinced you and not your politics unless you can give me details of your scientific eureka moment. It seems that its a political ideology that is calling upon studies that allegedly back you up, rather than the studies informing your political ideology.

We have proved it Jimi

I thought proof was something science could not deliver? If you mean, you have linked to studies, then detail them in your own words and we can take it from there.

now either you accept it, or you accept that, on this issue, you're a bigot.

You are entitled to your opinion, but alas you are wrong again. I don't mind the name calling, I just think it belittles your argument. You either accept that, or on this issue, you're a weasel.

doctoremma · 24-08-2012 05:57PM

Jimi - on phone so not even going to attempt a proper answer now, quoting is a nightmare. But can start by saying that there was no 'eureka' moment when I suddenly realised or discovered that gay people make perfectly competent parents. I have never once in my life thought that they couldn't. Why would I?

24-08-2012 06:02PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Certainly not, people have posted links to studies, but I've seen no answers to my questions regarding them. If you haven't read the studies, then don't pretend that they are what convinced you. If you want to discuss the studies, then start detailing in your own words what convinced you etc, but don't start telling me that its the science that has convinced you and not your politics unless you can give me details of your scientific eureka moment. It seems that its a political ideology that is calling upon studies that allegedly back you.

Lol this is just the saddest, lowest most dishonest point you've made yet.

For most of us it wasn't just the one study that convinced us. It was the fact that all of the studies reach the same conclusion, which is then endorsed by every relevant professional body.

We could hold your hand and go through some of these papers with you, but we all know that would just be a waste of time because you continue to make the dishonest claims that the sample size is not big enough and that all of the studies are tainted.

We've asked you repeatedly to explain your issues with the studies, but it's exceedingly clear that you can't actually do that. You haven't read the studies. You've just decided that they are invalid from the get go, purely because they do not agree with you.
And there's every indication that if we do take the time to explain the studies to you, you will just continue to reject and lie about them.

If you want to actually discuss the studies, it's you onus to explain the exact well supported, unbiased reasons why you reject them.

JimiTime · 24-08-2012 09:59PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Jimi - on phone so not even going to attempt a proper answer now, quoting is a nightmare. But can start by saying that there was no 'eureka' moment when I suddenly realised or discovered that gay people make perfectly competent parents. I have never once in my life thought that they couldn't. Why would I?

I never said that they couldn't make good parents neither so I'm not sure what you are addressing

JimiTime · 24-08-2012 10:10PM

King Mob wrote: »

Lol this is just the saddest, lowest most dishonest point you've made yet.

Ahh, King Mob, such a lovely guy.

For most of us it wasn't just the one study that convinced us. It was the fact that all of the studies reach the same conclusion, which is then endorsed by every relevant professional body.

We could hold your hand and go through some of these papers with you, but we all know that would just be a waste of time because you continue to make the dishonest claims that the sample size is not big enough and that all of the studies are tainted.

We've asked you repeatedly to explain your issues with the studies, but it's exceedingly clear that you can't actually do that. You haven't read the studies. You've just decided that they are invalid from the get go, purely because they do not agree with you.
And there's every indication that if we do take the time to explain the studies to you, you will just continue to reject and lie about them.

If you want to actually discuss the studies, it's you onus to explain the exact well supported, unbiased reasons why you reject them.

So you're still pretending you studied them and that they convinced you. No bother. I get ye;) So am I to assume your contribution will just be some more moronic ramblings? Or are you going to stop lying and admit you didn't study the studies? Just answer the questions I asked about the studies in your own words and we can take it from there, or you can admit that you didn't study the studies, but rather their existance was simply enough to back up your political ideologies.
I'm glad its finally being realised that this is nothing to do with science anyway, so thanks for that

24-08-2012 10:59PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Ahh, King Mob, such a lovely guy.

So you're still pretending you studied them and that they convinced you. No bother. I get ye;) So am I to assume your contribution will just be some more moronic ramblings? Or are you going to stop lying and admit you didn't study the studies? Just answer the questions I asked about the studies in your own words and we can take it from there, or you can admit that you didn't study the studies, but rather their existance was simply enough to back up your political ideologies.
I'm glad its finally being realised that this is nothing to do with science anyway, so thanks for that

Lol I like how you're trying to accuse me of lying while all the while you post what you post.
But yes I have read most of the studies presented to you.
Why would me answering inane questions in my own uneducated words make a difference (especially since you'll just ignore that anyway)?
Surely if you are rejecting them in an honest way you've already read them yourself and know what they say, right?

Can you point out any issues with any of the studies that would justify rejecting them?
Can you back up your repeated claim that there isn't a large enough sample?

Also you are once again twisting what people are saying to make a dishonest point.
I did not say that their existence was enough.
I said that the fact they all reach the same conclusion which is then also endorsed by professional bodies is enough.
Implying I said anything else is just more of the dishonesty that you need to maintain your position.

So again, please outline the issues you have with the studies, their methodology and such that you use to reject them.
Please show us how they do not have enough of a sample size.
Please show us exactly how they are tainted by bias.

Or do the honest grown up thing and withdraw your lies about the studies.

JimiTime · 25-08-2012 12:09PM

King Mob wrote: »

Lol I like how you're trying to accuse me of lying while all the while you post what you post.
But yes I have read most of the studies presented to you.
Why would me answering inane questions in my own uneducated words make a difference (especially since you'll just ignore that anyway)?
Surely if you are rejecting them in an honest way you've already read them yourself and know what they say, right?

Can you point out any issues with any of the studies that would justify rejecting them?
Can you back up your repeated claim that there isn't a large enough sample?

Also you are once again twisting what people are saying to make a dishonest point.
I did not say that their existence was enough.
I said that the fact they all reach the same conclusion which is then also endorsed by professional bodies is enough.
Implying I said anything else is just more of the dishonesty that you need to maintain your position.

So again, please outline the issues you have with the studies, their methodology and such that you use to reject them.
Please show us how they do not have enough of a sample size.
Please show us exactly how they are tainted by bias.

Or do the honest grown up thing and withdraw your lies about the studies.

Blah blah blah, dishonest
blah blah blah grow up
bleet bleet bleet passive agressive LOL
Yadda yadda, moronic rambling

Yeah, still don't see anything there. Remember, studies are what you claim convinced YOU, not me. If you don't want to get into it and continue your nonsense ramblings no problem. I certainly wont be tuning into your inane insults and silly frustrated ramblings anymore though.

Gumbi · 25-08-2012 12:18PM

What about them doesn't convince you?

JimiTime · 25-08-2012 12:35PM

Gumbi wrote: »

What about them doesn't convince you?

I never claimed that my position was arrived at via these things. OTHERS did, so if they want to detail them in their ow words, and answer the questions I asked, then we can get into it. At the moment though, it just looks like people are pretending that science has informed their politics. People are free not to engage of course, its up to them. It just seems a bit silly that they hurl insults out about dishonesty etc, when they can't even detail the alleged foundation of their position. Each to their own I suppose.

Corkfeen · 25-08-2012 12:35PM

I'm actually surprised that posters have continued this debate with Jimi. No amount of evidence will make him change his stance he abides by the absurd position of what he supposedly sees all around him is indisputable proof.

JimiTime · 25-08-2012 12:38PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm actually surprised that posters have continued this debate with Jimi. No amount of evidence will make him change his stance he abides by the absurd position of what he supposedly sees all around him is indisputable proof.

I'll ad that to the list. So now believing a mother and a father are important is

1. Bigotted
2. Laughable
3. Absurd position

I'd swear I was in the twilight zone sometimes:)

25-08-2012 12:40PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, still don't see anything there. Remember, studies are what you claim convinced YOU, not me. If you don't want to get into it and continue your nonsense ramblings no problem. I certainly wont be tuning into your inane insults and silly frustrated ramblings anymore though.

I do want to get into it. I've asked you repeatedly to back up your assertions about these studies.
You've claimed that they are tainted. You claimed that they cannot show what they conclude being only social science. You claimed that they do not have a sufficient sample size.
I'm asking you to back this up, but you haven't and probably can't.

I also asked you what the point of me restating the contents of one of the papers would be.
I'm not a psychologist or sociologist so anything the papers say I could only say with less authority and less education.

All the points are there in the paper (which you know because you must have read them all since you're rejecting them in an honest way) written by experts, those points withstanding peer review and then being endorsed by professional bodies.
Now if you have good reasons to reject these papers, please list them and support them.
Currently your accusations are baseless and make it look like you are rejecting them not because of any issues you have with their contents, but because you don't like their conclusions.

I assure you my posts aren't frustrated cause I've long given up on you being able to answer any questions put to you. But the fact you've had to resort to the tactics you do, as well as your immaturity, dishonesty and admissions about being closed minded and ill informed all serve to show how backward and silly your position is.

If you find it insulting when people call you dishonest, closed minded, childish and bigoted, perhaps you should stop being those things.

Bannasidhe · 25-08-2012 12:40PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll ad that to the list. So now believing a mother and a father are important is

1. Bigotted
2. Laughable
3. Absurd position

I'd swear I was in the twilight zone sometimes:)

I'd swear that if your opinion was allowed to dictate civil legislation we'd all be living in the Twilight Zone.

JimiTime · 25-08-2012 12:45PM

Sure I have a ban pending, so you wont have to put up with it for long.;):)

JimiTime · 25-08-2012 12:46PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'd swear that if your opinion was allowed to dictate civil legislation we'd all be living in the Twilight Zone.

He says a mother and father are important, quick Burn him....

This would be funny if it wasn't so bizarre

25-08-2012 12:50PM

JimiTime wrote: »

He says a mother and father are important, quick Burn him....

This would be funny if it wasn't so bizarre

Except for the fact that's not the point we are arguing against, nor is the point your are arguing for.

You claim that heterosexual parents are more beneficial than homosexual parents.
You claim that homosexual parents are not as capable as heterosexual parents.

However I think you realise just how horrible and offensive that claim is (never mind how unsupported and ill-informed), hence why you are engaging in this Newspeak and spin.

If you point is so reasonable, why do you have to spin it?

Bannasidhe · 25-08-2012 12:51PM

JimiTime wrote: »

He says a mother and father are important, quick Burn him....

This would be funny if it wasn't so bizarre

He says that having a mother and father is so important that those children who don't have a mother and father can't have two legally recognised parent's due to their crime of not having a mammy and daddy.

It is quite bizarre to state it is better a child should have only one parent than have parents of opposite genders and then claim this is in the interests of the child.

JimiTime · 25-08-2012 12:52PM

King Mob wrote: »

I do want to get into it. I've asked you repeatedly to back up your assertions about these studies.
You've claimed that they are tainted. You claimed that they cannot show what they conclude being only social science. You claimed that they do not have a sufficient sample size.
I'm asking you to back this up, but you haven't and probably can't.

I also asked you what the point of me restating the contents of one of the papers would be.
I'm not a psychologist or sociologist so anything the papers say I could only say with less authority and less education.

All the points are there in the paper (which you know because you must have read them all since you're rejecting them in an honest way) written by experts, those points withstanding peer review and then being endorsed by professional bodies.
Now if you have good reasons to reject these papers, please list them and support them.
Currently your accusations are baseless and make it look like you are rejecting them not because of any issues you have with their contents, but because you don't like their conclusions.

I assure you my posts aren't frustrated cause I've long given up on you being able to answer any questions put to you. But the fact you've had to resort to the tactics you do, as well as your immaturity, dishonesty and admissions about being closed minded and ill informed all serve to show how backward and silly your position is.

If you find it insulting when people call you dishonest, closed minded, childish and bigoted, perhaps you should stop being those things.

Still pretending then....No bother. YOU claim these studies convinced you, but wont go into it. No problem,

the dishonest Jimi.(may contain irony)

JimiTime · 25-08-2012 12:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He says that having a mother and father is so important that those children who don't have a mother and father can't have two legally recognised parent's due to their crime of not having a mammy and daddy.

Nope, never said that. In fact I said the opposite. You are so busy trying to put me into a box that you just ignore anything that doesn't suit your stereotype.

It is quite bizarre to state it is better a child should have only one parent than have parents of opposite genders and then claim this is in the interests of the child.

As I said, you are blinded by your own stereotyping. I know its annoying when you can't just put people into a nice convenient box and point at them as the bad guy, but hey ho, reality doesn't seem to really matter to you.

Bannasidhe · 25-08-2012 12:59PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Nope, never said that. In fact I said the opposite. You are so busy trying to put me into a box that you just ignore anything that doesn't suit your stereotype.

As I said, you are blinded by your own stereotyping. I know its annoying when you can't just put people into a nice convenient box and point at them as the bad guy, but hey ho, reality doesn't seem to really matter to you.

Have you now taken to talking to yourself?

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

Comments