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

01-09-2012 12:02PM

Actor wrote: »

RE post 1375:

"...researchers cannot possible [sic.] evaluate the degree to which particular samples do or do not represent the population."

also,

RE post 1336

Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator, 28, 544-552

"In-depth interviews were conducted with a snowball sample of 40 gay fathers and 14 of their children. Uses a cross-national sample: Interviews were conducted in large and small cities in both Canada and the United States. Excluded from the study were men who no longer saw their children"

Mmm.

Also:

"These results were based on a small sample, and they must be interpreted with caution"

Also:

"Because of the small sample size and the absence of statistical tests, this finding should be seen as suggestive rather than conclusive."

When I see some definitive and significant statistical testing that's (preferably quantitative rather than wishy-washy qualitative research findings), I'll take things to the next level. Until then, the onus is on you.

So that's 4 out of the dozens you've been provided, which included large scale systematic reviews which gathers together these smaller scale studies and looks for a trend.

And the trend does not support your conclusion.
And you cannot provide one study that supports your position.

The gay conspiracy at work again I assume?

NuMarvel · 01-09-2012 12:05PM

Actor wrote: »

jumping to all kinds of conclusions about gay people and their behaviours makes a mockery of real science.

Which is EXACTLY what you're doing.

Actor wrote: »

I won't get into what they do after hours (I even saw one of them in Palmerstown Park on my way home from work one night).

For a man so outraged and disgusted by "unnatural" sexual activity, you are quite the expert on its affects, and where it's carried on...

Actor · 01-09-2012 12:08PM

King Mob wrote: »

So that's 4 out of the dozens you've been provided, which included large scale systematic reviews which gathers together these smaller scale studies and looks for a trend.

And the trend does not support your conclusion.
And you cannot provide one study that supports your position.

I am saying that these "scientific" studies that support pro-homosexual unions are usually biased and unrepresentative:

- authors are usually gay themselves or heavily involved in the pro-homosexual lobby
- jump to conclusions based on insignificant sample sizes
- emphasise qualitative research as hard quantitative evidence doesn't add up for them
- usually publish in b-list journals

Now, if you'd like to provide me with a particular study (as opposed to summary studies) that suits your agenda, please forward it on to me. I have time this afternoon.

Actor · 01-09-2012 12:09PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Which is EXACTLY what you're doing.

Homosexuality isn't just a scientific issue. It's a predominantly moral issue.

But of course those on the pro-homosexual lifestyle side choose to focus in on the scientific side of things because their moral arguments in favour of homosexuality are weak.

I have respect for all humans, whether they take it up the bum or not. It's the Catholic thing to do. It's their opinions that I have issue with and these will continue to be held up to scrutiny and ridicule.

01-09-2012 12:11PM

Actor wrote: »

I work at a university. I can tell you that in my experience, the type of people who submit these papers to these so-called "scientific" journals either take it up the bum or drink from the furry cup. I won't get into what they do after hours (I even saw one of them in Palmerstown Park on my way home from work one night).

Lol so you're not going to back up your assertion.

For a moment there I though you might be actually capable of rational debate.
But again you've slipped into stuff that could only be from a troll, or some one actually that bigoted and ignorant and offensive. Either way it's clear that debate is pointless other than to show how bigoted ignorant and offensive your crap is.

So if you'd like to grow up and debate rationally, please address my points.

01-09-2012 12:15PM

Actor wrote: »

I am saying that these "scientific" studies that support pro-homosexual unions are usually biased and unrepresentative:

- authors are usually gay themselves or heavily involved in the pro-homosexual lobby
- jump to conclusions based on insignificant sample sizes
- emphasise qualitative research as hard quantitative evidence doesn't add up for them
- usually publish in b-list journals

Now, if you'd like to provide me with a particular study (as opposed to summary studies) that suits your agenda, please forward it on to me. I have time this afternoon.

Please back up these assertions. Or withdraw them as the ignorant lies they are.

Again, you've been repeatedly provided a long list of studies and statements from professional bodies that all disagree with you.
I'm not going to waste my time finding it and reposting it for you when you are just going fall back onto your increasingly silly gay conspiracy theory idea.

Again, if you feel like debating like an adult, go find and address those studies.

Actor · 01-09-2012 12:16PM

King Mob wrote: »

Lol so you're not going to back up your assertion.

What part of "my personal experience" do you not understand? Do you want me to install a hi-res CCTV camera in Palmerstown Park (though I wish the Gardai would) so we can identify these people?

Also, this is a moral argument. Not necessarily a scientific one. If you want to debate on the moral plane. Fine. If you want to restrict this debate to the scientific plane, then I'm not interested in engaging with someone who won't withdraw remarks when called up on them.

Actor · 01-09-2012 12:18PM

King Mob wrote: »

Please back up these assertions. Or withdraw them as the ignorant lies they are.

Again, you've been repeatedly provided a long list of studies and statements from professional bodies that all disagree with you.
I'm not going to waste my time finding it and reposting it for you when you are just going fall back onto your increasingly silly gay conspiracy theory idea.

Again, if you feel like debating like an adult, go find and address those studies.

I asked you to provide me with one study that you find compelling. Not a list of studies (and/or summary research findings) that you yourself admit have holes in them with regards to sample sizes and statistical (in)significance.

01-09-2012 12:18PM

Actor wrote: »

What part of "my personal experience" do you not understand?

Also, this is a moral argument. Not necessarily a scientific one. If you want to debate on the moral plane. Fine. If you want to restrict this debate to the scientific plane, then I'm not interested in engaging with someone who won't withdraw remarks when called up on them.

Nothing. Just that your personal experience and comments about it both display and show how it is tainted by your bigotry.

Either back up your assertions in a verifiable, objective way, or withdraw them.
Simply stating it on your own authority isn't going to fly as none of us are even convinced you really hold the positions you say you do.

Actor wrote: »

I asked you to provide me with one study that you find compelling. Not a list of studies (and/or summary research findings) that you yourself admit have holes in them with regards to sample sizes and statistical (in)significance.

Because one study is never compelling by itself. It's the weight of peer reviewed studies and statements of professional bodies vs your nonexistant studies that show the opposite and you own personal bias and bigotry that makes it convincing.

Again, the list has been linked to several times, go find it and address it if you are actually here to discuss something instead of trolling.

NuMarvel · 01-09-2012 12:21PM

Actor wrote: »

Homosexuality isn't just a scientific issue. It's a predominantly moral issue.

But of course those on the pro-homosexual lifestyle side choose to focus in on the scientific side of things because their moral arguments in favour of homosexuality are weak.

I have respect for all humans, whether they take it up the bum or not. It's the Catholic thing to do. It's their opinions that I have issue with and these will continue to be held up to scrutiny and ridicule.

The only opinions being subjected to ridicule right now are yours. And that's only because they don't stand up to scrutiny.

Actor · 01-09-2012 12:23PM

King Mob wrote: »

Nothing. Just that your personal experience and comments about it both display and show how it is tainted by your bigotry.

Either back up your assertions in a verifiable, objective way, or withdraw them.
Simply stating it on your own authority isn't going to fly as none of us are even convinced you really hold the positions you say you do.

This is a discussion forum. Not a court of law. If I say I regularly see homosexuals engaging in "cruising" in the vicinity of my home, who are you to say otherwise? Are you now acting as the thought-police?

Now I've repeated asked you to provide me with a study that shows that there is no difference between gay/lesbian parents and normal parents. I'd appreciate if:

- the authors themselves were scientists and weren't involved in pro-homosexual lobby groups
- there's a quantitative element to the research findings (i.e. significant results)
- no emphasis on wishy-wash qualitative studies (interviews, surveys, etc.)
- you quoted an A-list journal of repute

Actor · 01-09-2012 12:25PM

King Mob wrote: »

Because one study is never compelling by itself. It's the weight of peer reviewed studies and statements of professional bodies vs your nonexistant studies that show the opposite and you own personal bias and bigotry that makes it convincing.

So no studies on their own are compelling? And one has to blindly rely on the "weight of peer review"? That's fine with me. You've just lost the argument.

Do you mind me asking what other field of scientific research such a position would be accepted?

01-09-2012 12:31PM

Actor wrote: »

This is a discussion forum. Not a court of law. If I say I regularly see homosexuals engaging in "cruising" in the vicinity of my home, who are you to say otherwise? Are you now acting as the thought-police?

It's a discussion forum, but we still have personal standards of evidence which we use to judge what is and is not convincing.
No one thinks your word alone is convincing.

You claimed that any study that disargeed with you was involved in the gay conspiracy.
Either back that up objectively and verifiable or admit you can't do that and withdraw the claim.

Actor wrote: »

Now I've repeated asked you to provide me with a study that shows that there is no difference between gay/lesbian parents and normal parents. I'd appreciate if:

- the authors themselves were scientists and weren't involved in pro-homosexual lobby groups
- there's a quantitative element to the research findings (i.e. significant results)
- no emphasis on wishy-wash qualitative studies (interviews, surveys, etc.)
- you quoted an A-list journal of repute

Here's one I found with the barest of effort:
http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

So when you then try to dismiss it, you are going to have to back up that claim with evidence.

01-09-2012 12:33PM

Actor wrote: »

So no studies on their own are compelling? And one has to blindly rely on the "weight of peer review"? That's fine with me. You've just lost the argument.

Do you mind me asking what other field of scientific research such a position would be accepted?

Show me one field of study where one paper is enough to dictate the facts.

But in this case, every single study and organisation have reached the same conclusion, you cannot provide a single study to show the opposite and need to rely on a paranoid conspiracy theory to justify that.

Corkfeen · 01-09-2012 12:48PM

Actor wrote: »

NuMarvel wrote: »

Which is EXACTLY what you're doing.

Homosexuality isn't just a scientific issue. It's a predominantly moral issue.

But of course those on the pro-homosexual lifestyle side choose to focus in on the scientific side of things because their moral arguments in favour of homosexuality are weak.

I have respect for all humans, whether they take it up the bum or not. It's the Catholic thing to do. It's their opinions that I have issue with and these will continue to be held up to scrutiny and ridicule.

Erm.... It might be a moral issue in christianity but there is absolutely no reason why the rest of the world should view it as such. You haven't given a real argument against homosexuality and there's probably not anyone capable of giving a legitimate moral argument against it. You're also making up some rather weird claims of it being an elaborate gay conspiracy(unverifiable statements from the man that spends his time complaining about sodomy cannot be taken seriously) yet you claim that you are not bigoted.

marienbad · 01-09-2012 02:43PM

Actor wrote: »

It's ok... I understand you're not gay. It's fine. Go talk to someone in a wooly jumper about it.

You're getting very close to my ignore list now.

I work at a university. I can tell you that in my experience, the type of people who submit these papers to these so-called "scientific" journals either take it up the bum or drink from the furry cup. I won't get into what they do after hours (I even saw one of them in Palmerstown Park on my way home from work one night).

What were you doing around Palmerstown park ?

Sin City · 01-09-2012 03:14PM

Actor wrote: »

Also, this is a moral argument. Not necessarily a scientific one. If you want to debate on the moral plane. Fine. If you want to restrict this debate to the scientific plane, then I'm not interested in engaging with someone who won't withdraw remarks when called up on them.

How do you figure homosexuality is a moral issue?

Sin City · 01-09-2012 03:18PM

Actor wrote: »

A cursory glance at any pro-homosexual journal shows that the vast majority of authors engage in homosexual behaviour in one form or another (this ranges from "monogomous marriage simulation" to "cruising").

Back this up

Actor wrote: »

I work at a university. I can tell you that in my experience, the type of people who submit these papers to these so-called "scientific" journals either take it up the bum or drink from the furry cup. I won't get into what they do after hours (I even saw one of them in Palmerstown Park on my way home from work one night).

This is not backing it up

Back it up or withdraw it

Bannasidhe · 01-09-2012 03:18PM

Sin City wrote: »

How do you figure homosexuality is a moral issue?

Because he is agin it.

Sin City · 01-09-2012 03:21PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because he is agin it.

Doesnt make it immoral

Just makes him a bloody big HOMOphobe

Bannasidhe · 01-09-2012 03:25PM

I have seen heterosexual men and women engaging in acts of sexual gratification on our streets in broad daylight.

Every night young heterosexual women drunkenly flaunt their bodies on our city streets while young men shout sexual innuendos at them.

My elderly mother was so shocked to encounter a young man and woman in a city centre shopping mall engaging in simulated sexual intercourse at 1pm one Patrick's day that she publicly upbraided them and called security. The Parade attended by children was passing by outside just feet from where this was happening.

But apparently only the gheys are immoral...:rolleyes:

PDN · 01-09-2012 04:14PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have seen heterosexual men and women engaging in acts of sexual gratification on our streets in broad daylight.

Every night young heterosexual women drunkenly flaunt their bodies on our city streets while young men shout sexual innuendos at them.

My elderly mother was so shocked to encounter a young man and woman in a city centre shopping mall engaging in simulated sexual intercourse at 1pm one Patrick's day that she publicly upbraided them and called security. The Parade attended by children was passing by outside just feet from where this was happening.

But apparently only the gheys are immoral...:rolleyes:

Is there a single Christian poster who, in this thread or anyone else on this board, has given the impression that they would not find the things you've just described as immoral? :rolleyes:

Sin City · 01-09-2012 04:16PM

PDN wrote: »

Is there a single Christian poster who, in this thread or anyone else on this board, has given the impression that they would not find the things you've just described as immoral? :rolleyes:

Dunno, waiting for actors responce

Sarky · 01-09-2012 04:18PM

So TD's can expect a wave of demands from constituents to legislate against wanton displays of heterosexuality, yeah? I can't help but feel you're being a teeny bit disingenuous here.

PDN · 01-09-2012 04:18PM

Actor wrote: »

I work at a university. I can tell you that in my experience, the type of people who submit these papers to these so-called "scientific" journals either take it up the bum or drink from the furry cup. I won't get into what they do after hours (I even saw one of them in Palmerstown Park on my way home from work one night).

Mod Note
For anyone that has been 'debating' with Actor, don't expect any reply until his two week ban for trolling has expired.

PDN · 01-09-2012 04:23PM

Sarky wrote: »

So TD's can expect a wave of demands from constituents to legislate against wanton displays of heterosexuality, yeah? I can't help but feel you're being a teeny bit disingenuous here.

And I can't help thinking you're being argumentative for the sake of it.

You are aware that Christian groups have a long record of lobbying government and public representatives to legislate against wanton displays of heterosexual behaviour in public - for example as regards pornography, prostitution, lap-dancing clubs etc?

Bannasidhe · 01-09-2012 04:41PM

PDN wrote: »

Is there a single Christian poster who, in this thread or anyone else on this board, has given the impression that they would not find the things you've just described as immoral? :rolleyes:

Is there a single Christian poster on this thread who has mentioned that heterosexuals can be and are sexually promiscuous or are accusations of that kind of thing reserved for homosexuals only?

Just trying to provide a bit of balance PDN.

If one is going to claim that homosexuals are sexually promiscuous and use this as a means to criticise them, as Actor has been doing, it is only fair to point out that similar behavior occurs among heterosexuals so that renders his point void.

By 'board' do you mean the whole of 'boards.ie' or are you referring to the Christianity forum alone?

PDN · 01-09-2012 04:52PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is there a single Christian poster on this thread who has mentioned that heterosexuals can be and are sexually promiscuous or are accusations of that kind of thing reserved for homosexuals only?

Without bothering to scroll through numerous pages of type (or tripe) and cite all such mentions, the first one was in post number 9 where the New Testament was quoted to condemn adultery.

Bannasidhe · 01-09-2012 05:02PM

PDN wrote: »

Without bothering to scroll through numerous pages of type (or tripe) and cite all such mentions, the first one was in post number 9 where the New Testament was quoted to condemn adultery.

Are you now going to pull up every poster who fails to scroll through 1469 posts on a thread made up of merged threads to ensure something wasn't mentioned before?

Actor made these claims on this page so I responded on this page. Why is that an issue exactly?

Would you like to point out to Actor that as he has previously made these claims in this thread he should not repeat himself?

Who said anything about adultery? I have no idea of the teenagers my mother chastised were married or not??? That is not the point and you know it.

PDN · 01-09-2012 05:14PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you now going to pull up every poster who fails to scroll through 1469 posts on a thread made up of merged threads to ensure something wasn't mentioned before?

No, but I am going to pull up posters who give distorted parodies of what their opponents believe. No-one has stated or suggested that all heterosexual acts are moral, or that only gays engage in immoral activities.

You do your cause no favours by such over the top stuff. Reducing yourself to Actor's level simply plays into his hands.

Actor made these claims on this page so I responded on this page. Why is that an issue exactly?

Except that Actor didn't make any claim that only gays are immoral.

Would you like to point out to Actor that as he has previously made these claims in this thread he should not repeat himself?

If I were to correct every poster that repeats themself then I would be a very busy poster indeed.

Who said anything about adultery? I have no idea of the teenagers my mother chastised were married or not??? That is not the point and you know it.

Oh stop farting about for goodness sake! You asked me if there was a single Christian poster who had mentioned that heterosexuals can be and are sexually promiscuous. So I looked at the first page of the thread and saw one straight away. And that is the point.

If you were wanting to see where posters had, perhaps prophetically, condemned the precise actions that your mother witnessed, then I wouldn't even have bothered responding.

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

Comments