Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…4142444647…218

Comments

  • #1292
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Actor wrote: »
    It's not bigotry (despite what you want to believe). There's a natural sexual complementarity in parenting.
    Except that all studies comparing same sex and mixed sex parents find that there is no benefit or deficit to having one over the other.

    So unless you produce something substantive to prove otherwise, your opinion is based on a bigotry against gay people.


  • #1293
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    King Mob wrote: »
    Except that all studies comparing same sex and mixed sex parents find that there is no benefit or deficit to having one over the other.

    So unless you produce something substantive to prove otherwise, your opinion is based on a bigotry against gay people.

    Keep drinking the kool aid there pal. Also, I have no idea what study you are referring to.

    On another note:

    Lol. :P

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056713191&page=78#1158

    Told you you'd be back on your hobby horse...


  • #1294
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Actor wrote: »
    Keep drinking the kool aid there pal. Also, I have no idea what study you are referring to.
    So you don't know what study I'm referring to (It's all of them BTW) but you are already sure that it's invalid.

    But don't worry. I didn't expend that much effort getting you display your own dishonesty and bigotry.
    Frankly you're doing most of the work for us.


  • #1295
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Actor wrote: »
    Keep drinking the kool aid there pal. Also, I have no idea what study you are referring to.

    Adoption by gay couples has been available in the USA long enough to study the effects it has on children raised in those households. Despite a large number of studies into this area none of them could find evidence that children raised in these households faced any greater risk of developmental problems than those raised in straight households.

    Or to put it another way, gay parents are just as likely to **** up their kids as straight parents are :p

    BTW appealing to "nature" is a bit silly considering for a large amount of time in human history it was common to kill unwanted children, particularly girls. A natural instinct in many human males, but not one to celebrate because it is "natural".


  • #1296
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Jimi's point is quite simple, children raised in these less than ideal households will miss out on the experiences that would be afforded to them if they were in more ideal house holds.
    Can you name a single experience that could not equally be provided by a same-sex couple?
    This is a pretty obvious point and I'm struggling as to why people are having such a problem with it.
    Because it is entirely imaginary and actually doesn't exist. he might as well be saying ideally you cannot raise a child without a pet unicorn.
    Actor wrote: »
    It's not bigotry (despite what you want to believe). There's a natural sexual complementarity in parenting. Are you saying that such complementarity doesn't exist?
    Between individual people, yes. Between the sexes across the entire human population in every different cultural environment, no.


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you don't know what study I'm referring to but you are already sure that it's invalid.

    But don't worry. I didn't expend that much effort getting you display your own dishonesty and bigotry.
    Frankly you're doing most of the work for us.

    And you accuse me of dishonesty. Please point out where I have invalidated your ghost study or retract the accusation.


  • #1298
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Jimi's point is quite simple, children raised in these less than ideal households will miss out on the experiences that would be afforded to them if they were in more ideal house holds.

    This is a pretty obvious point and I'm struggling as to why people are having such a problem with it. To my mind you are all asking the wrong question. The question should be how much does this matter.

    I was not raised in a rich house hold. In the grand scheme of things this was not ideal, I would have had better experiences had my parents had more money. I would have traveled more, possibly got a better education, had more opportunities. In the development of me to a reasonably fully functioning adult the question is though does this matter?

    It is obvious that a child raised in a household with two gay men will not have the experience of having a mother. They also may not have the experience of being rich, living in an Irish speaking part of the country, being by the sea, having access to a non-Catholic school etc etc etc. It is debatable if there is such a thing as the ideal family.

    The question that should matter is what damage will this have on the child's development and is this so minor as to be acceptable. I don't think it is ideal that a child be raised in a religious family. Does that mean I think it is so damaging to the child that I would object to adoption for religious people? No, not at all. I don't think it is ideal that a child be raised in Finglas (for those outside Dublin, a north dublin area of high crime and drug use). Do I object to adoptions in Finglas? No, not at all. These things are not ideal but that is a long way off saying that they are so damaging to a child, that harm is so certain because of this specific variable, that they should prevent adoption.

    That is the question you should be asking Jimi, not whether he thinks your sister or mother raising a single child is a bad parent or not, as Jimi himself points out that is utterly beside the point.

    Odin you all make me so angry!!! :eek::eek::p

    I asked jimi these questions about 75 pages ago - a few times in fact- and he has no interest in going down that road . I wonder why ?


  • #1299
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    MadsL wrote: »
    Between individual people, yes. Between the sexes across the entire human population in every different cultural environment, no.

    Right, so you agree that there's a sexual complementarity between the two sexes; the pair being the roots of the family unit. Yet in the very next sentence, you say this is all irrelevant. Fair play to you.


  • #1300
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Adoption by gay couples has been available in the USA long enough to study the effects it has on children raised in those households. Despite a large number of studies into this area none of them could find evidence that children raised in these households faced any greater risk of developmental problems than those raised in straight households.

    Show me a study. Pick one.


  • #1301
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    MadsL wrote: »
    Can you name a single experience that could not equally be provided by a same-sex couple?

    Sure, having your father explain to you after you were beaten up in school what it was like for him when he was a boy your age.

    My theoretical two lesbian mothers can't explain to me what it was like when they were a 14 year old boys. They can explain what it was like when they were 14 year old girls, but that won't be the same experience, it will probably mean much less to a 14 year old boy.

    It is ridiculously silly to pretend that a gay couple can provide the exact same experience as a straight couple would. Heck it is silly to pretend that two straight couples will provide the exact same experience as each other.

    The question is how much does this matter? Not a lot seems to be the evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • #1302
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Actor wrote: »
    It's not bigotry (despite what you want to believe). There's a natural sexual complementarity in parenting. Are you saying that such complementarity doesn't exist?

    There can be a sexually complementary element to procreation, not parenting.

    And seeing as how marriage and families are about more than just procreation, it's an irrelevant factor in this discussion.


  • #1303
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Actor wrote: »
    Show me a study. Pick one.

    Take your pick

    http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx


  • #1304
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Actor wrote: »
    And you accuse me of dishonesty. Please point out where I have invalidated your ghost study or retract the accusation.

    There has been a long list of such studies that was repeatedly linked to and continually ignored by the people holding your position.
    Those are the studies I am referring to.

    So you can either admit you haven't read what people are saying.
    Admit you actually are rejecting those studies out of hand.
    Or admit that the studies say what they say and expose your position for the bigotry it is.

    Or you could just do what most of the anti gay crowd do when forced into a corner by the dishonesty they use and just ignore it.


  • #1305
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Sure, having your father explain to you after you were beaten up in school what it was like for him when he was a boy your age.

    Well that's just pointless. Any proper father will tell his 14 year old wimp of a boy that when he (the father) was in school, he was the one doing the beating up and the son is bringing shame to the family name by coming home an expecting to be coddled.

    If, when presented with a son who has been beaten up in school, a father doesn't immediately state "I hope the other guy looks worse", then the man has failed as a father. End of.

    ;););)


  • #1306
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Actor wrote: »
    Right, so you agree that there's a sexual complementarity between the two sexes; the pair being the roots of the family unit. Yet in the very next sentence, you say this is all irrelevant. Fair play to you.

    I said people. Learn the difference.


  • #1307
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Sure, having your father explain to you after you were beaten up in school what it was like for him when he was a boy your age.

    My theoretical two lesbian mothers can't explain to me what it was like when they were a 14 year old boys. They can explain what it was like when they were 14 year old girls, but that won't be the same experience, it will probably mean much less to a 14 year old boy.

    It is ridiculously silly to pretend that a gay couple can provide the exact same experience as a straight couple would. Heck it is silly to pretend that two straight couples will provide the exact same experience as each other.

    The question is how much does this matter? Not a lot seems to be the evidence.

    You argument assumes that the key portion of that is what it is like to be bullied as a boy, not what it is like to be bullied. What is the key part of the experience for the child, the bullying or the gender?
    It is ridiculously silly to pretend that a gay couple can provide the exact same experience as a straight couple would. Heck it is silly to pretend that two straight couples will provide the exact same experience as each other.

    No-one is taking issue with that, what is at issue is that the experiences are lesser in value.


  • #1308
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    MadsL wrote: »
    You argument assumes that the key portion of that is what it is like to be bullied as a boy, not what it is like to be bullied. What is the key part of the experience for the child, the bullying or the gender?



    No-one is taking issue with that, what is at issue is that the experiences are lesser in value.

    Yes they are taking issue with that, at least I suspect so, and I would say it is the issue for christians in the whole discussion


  • #1309
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Actor wrote: »
    Hi Bannasidhe. When are you going to retract your accusation of me lying RE: abortifacients and medical card holders?

    I spoke to a pharmacist at the weekend who assured me that both the pill and morning-after pill are available to medical card holders for free.

    When you provide me with verifiable proof I will gladly retract. I have already said this.

    I supplied a link to a source that contradicts you - you have yet to come forward with anything but hearsay. But since it can be bought over the counter from Boots without a prescription is you problem with the pill itself or with the State providing it (if they do- waiting your proof) for people on Social Welfare?

    You do know the pill is not an abortifacient yes?


  • #1310
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    MadsL wrote: »
    You argument assumes that the key portion of that is what it is like to be bullied as a boy, not what it is like to be bullied. What is the key part of the experience for the child, the bullying or the gender?

    I didn't present an argument, I presented an example (the one you asked for). The experience will not be the same having one of my lesbian mothers tell me what it was like when she was a 14 year old boy because she wasn't a 14 year old boy.

    If you are sitting there going "But but but that isn't going to matter, the point is to help support the kid through a difficult time, the specifics of the experience are not relevant" I agree entirely. I was merely providing the example you asked for because the implication behind your query was that the experiences will be the same whether it is a straight or gay couple raising the child.

    It is silly to pretend that a gay couple can provide the exact same experience to a child as a straight couple. They can't, simply through biological reality. But as you seem to agree that doesn't really matter if the specific details of the experience are not as relevant as the positive out come to the child.

    Or to put it another way, if the child comes out of the experience feeling supported and loved does it matter that the experience was not identical to the one a straight parent would have provided.
    MadsL wrote: »
    No-one is taking issue with that, what is at issue is that the experiences are lesser in value.

    Everyone is taking issue with that. It is the basis of Jimi's objection and everyone else is trying to explain to Jimi that a child in a gay parent house hold will have the same experiences as one in a straight parent house. That is a stupid argument to present to Jimi, since by definition they won't. They couldn't possibly. Jimi is entirely correct, it will be a different, some times very different, experience.

    What people, including Jimi, should be focusing on is yes the experience will be different but how much this matters to the development of the child. Again not a lot seems to be the answer supported by the evidence.


  • #1311
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yes they are taking issue with that, at least I suspect so, and I would say it is the issue for christians in the whole discussion

    The assertion for the 'anti' side seems to be that gay parents are somehow less than ideal parents, the 'pro' side are not arguing that the experience is identical just it has the same value.

    Zombrex, in the context you expressed; fair point.


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MadsL wrote: »
    The assertion for the 'anti' side seems to be that gay parents are somehow less than ideal parents, the 'pro' side are not arguing that the experience is identical just it has the same value.

    To be precise the 'anti' side is arguing that the ideal is a man and a woman who are married everything else is lesser with Gay parent's being the winners of the lease ideal so it therefore mustn't be allowed.


  • #1313
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    MadsL wrote: »
    The assertion for the 'anti' side seems to be that gay parents are somehow less than ideal parents, the 'pro' side are not arguing that the experience is identical just it has the same value.

    Zombrex, in the context you expressed; fair point.

    And as an extension of that - any gay parents are lesser than the very worst of straight parents.

    To such an extent that they should not be allowd to adopt. Better even to leave a child in a home than be adopted by a gay couple .

    So much for putting the child first.


  • #1314
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    And as an extension of that - any gay parents are lesser than the very worst of straight parents.

    To such an extent that they should not be allowd to adopt. Better even to leave a child in a home than be adopted by a gay couple .

    So much for putting the child first.

    Sorry, can you link to where anyone has made that assertion - that any gay parents are lesser than the very worst of straight parents?


  • #1315
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    When you provide me with verifiable proof I will gladly retract. I have already said this.

    My pharmacist friend must be *lying* so?


  • #1316
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Take your pick

    http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

    I asked *you* to pick one. The study you find most compelling is fine - some quotes wouldn't go astray either. Let me know so I can read over it.


  • #1317
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    PDN wrote: »
    Sorry, can you link to where anyone has made that assertion - that any gay parents are lesser than the very worst of straight parents?

    Is it not a logical progression of the "Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt" line of thinking? If a person thinks gay couples should be automatically forbidden from applying to adopt in the first place, then it stands to reason that person views them as being lesser than those who are allowed to apply, but then rejected after evaluation.

    And I'm sure I don't have to show you examples of where someone has made the claim that gay couples should never be allowed to adopt.


  • #1318
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Actor wrote: »
    My pharmacist friend must be *lying* so?

    I did not say that. I asked for proof - surely your pharmacy friend can tell you where this information can be found?

    As contraception is not an issue for me I really don't know the details of what is and is not available so I can only rely on what I read in verifiable sources.

    Are you ok with the morning after pill being available over the counter?


  • #1319
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Are you ok with the morning after pill being available over the counter?

    No. Killing babies is never ok; no matter how inconvenient.


  • #1320
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Is it not a logical progression of the "Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt" line of thinking?

    Only if someone were exceptionally bad at logic.

    It would, however be a logical progression of the "Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt, and every single heterosexual couple should be allowed to adopt" line of thinking.

    And I'd love to see where anyone has argued that.


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    PDN wrote: »
    Only if someone were exceptionally bad at logic.

    Oh, I agree. But the people putting forward the "Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt" have shown they aren't adept at logical, rational thought, so my reply is in keeping with their way of thinking.


Advertisement