Dr. Thomas Sowell On Gay Marriage

Mark Tapley

NZT73 wrote: »

OscarBravo It's just goes to show how weak your position is when all you can do is lock threads.

humanji closed the other thread not oscarBravo.

PopePalpatine

NZT73 wrote: »

I understand from your perspective it would seem unpleasant but to everyone else it's providing relief

Who's this "everyone else" you're referring to?

NZT73

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Who's this "everyone else" you're referring to?

The silent NO vote that is gathering like a tsunami to crush you

Annasopra

NZT73 wrote: »

The silent NO vote that is gathering like a tsunami to crush you

:rolleyes:

Shrap

NZT73 wrote: »

The silent NO vote that is gathering like a tsunami to crush you

shruikan2553

NZT73 wrote: »

The silent NO vote that is gathering like a tsunami to crush you

If they are silent I dont think anyone has to worry.

PopePalpatine

NZT73 wrote: »

The silent NO vote that is gathering like a tsunami to crush you

Are they like your comrades in Russia who like to go on "safaris"?

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

The silent NO vote that is gathering like a tsunami to crush you

It might be more productive if the NO was less silent and actually explained why it wants to deny some people civil rights.

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

The thread isn't locked, and your freedom of speech (insofar as it exists on a privately-owned website) is unabridged.

For someone who uses civil rights as the bases of their argument it would seem from this quote, in your mind, rights are conditional.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If they are silent I dont think anyone has to worry.

The silent NO vote is EVERYONE outside you and your circle of friends who keep reinforcing your distorted world view. The silent NO vote is EVERYONE who will mark NO on the paper, fold it over and drop it on the box.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It might be more productive if the NO was less silent and actually explained why it wants to deny some people civil rights.

No one needs to qualify themselves to you, in the same way people like you close threads and ban people because they don't agree with your opinion.

There will be no dignity in your defeat. The fact that you site civil rights for want you want and then take civil rights away from others completely undermines your position. You could have lost with some self respect but now you wont even have that.

Shrap

NZT73 wrote: »

There will be no dignity in your defeat. The fact that you site civil rights for want you want and then take civil rights away from others completely undermines your position. You could have lost with some self respect but now you wont even have that.

Am thinking this will look quite funny if the Yes side takes the vote on the day!

shruikan2553

NZT73 wrote: »

For someone who uses civil rights as the bases of their argument it would seem from this quote, in your mind, rights are conditional.




The silent NO vote is EVERYONE outside you and your circle of friends who keep reinforcing your distorted world view. The silent NO vote is EVERYONE who will mark NO on the paper, fold it over and drop it on the box.



No one needs to qualify themselves to you, in the same way people like you close threads and ban people because they don't agree with your opinion.

There will be no dignity in your defeat. The fact that you site civil rights for want you want and then take civil rights away from others completely undermines your position. You could have lost with some self respect but now you wont even have that.

Alright Conan the barbarian, calm down. How are peoples civil rights being removed? Its a bit pot and kettle you giving out about taking these civil rights from others (which you haven't explained what they are) while you wish to do the same.

Are we to take your word that there is a strike team ready with thousands of people who have been trying to lul the country into a false sense of security so that they can pop down at the last minute and vote?

NZT73

Shrap wrote: »

Am thinking this will look quite funny if the Yes side takes the vote on the day!

You won't win, But you still violated your own principles

NZT73

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Alright Conan the barbarian, calm down. How are peoples civil rights being removed? Its a bit pot and kettle you giving out about taking these civil rights from others (which you haven't explained what they are) while you wish to do the same.

I can't take what people don't have :0)

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Are we to take your word that there is a strike team ready with thousands of people who have been trying to lul the country into a false sense of security so that they can pop down at the last minute and vote?

You have a sense of security? You must be dreaming. You're obviously not taking all demographics of this country into account. The many people who see marriage between a man and woman and not two men or two women or a man and a goat or a 50 year old man and a 12 year old virgin not a man and his horse or blow up doll or anything else you where dreaming of

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

For someone who uses civil rights as the bases of their argument it would seem from this quote, in your mind, rights are conditional.

Yes, some rights are conditional. Your right to express yourself on this privately-owned website is conditional upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions you agreed to when you created an account.

But we're not talking about freedom of speech; we're talking about freedom to marry. Specifically, we're trying to talk about why you feel some people should be denied that right, and your repeated refusal to explain why you feel they should be denied that right.

The silent NO vote is EVERYONE outside you and your circle of friends who keep reinforcing your distorted world view.

What distorted world view?

The silent NO vote is EVERYONE who will mark NO on the paper, fold it over and drop it on the box.

Some of those people are very far from silent, believe me.

No one needs to qualify themselves to you, in the same way people like you close threads and ban people because they don't agree with your opinion.

The thread is open, and you are not banned. It's ironic that you repeatedly claim that you're being silenced, when this thread consists almost entirely of people asking you questions and wondering why you won't answer them.

There will be no dignity in your defeat. The fact that you site civil rights for want you want and then take civil rights away from others completely undermines your position.

Who (apart from you, for reasons you refuse point-blank to explain) wants to take civil rights away from anyone?

Shrap

NZT73 wrote: »

You won't win, But you still violated your own principles

Sorry, wut?! :rolleyes: Rhetorical question, not really looking for your answer here btw.

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

The many people who see marriage between a man and woman and not two men or two women or a man and a goat or a 50 year old man and a 12 year old virgin not a man and his horse or blow up doll or anything else you where dreaming of

Ah. You're one of those.

Thank goodness for that, I thought there might be someone out there with a coherent argument against marriage equality. Apparently not.

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

and your repeated refusal to explain why you feel they should be denied that right.

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What distorted world view? Some of those people are very far from silent, believe me. The thread is open, and you are not banned. It's ironic that you repeatedly claim that you're being silenced, when this thread consists almost entirely of people asking you questions and wondering why you won't answer them. Who (apart from you, for reasons you refuse point-blank to explain) wants to take civil rights away from anyone?

My other thread was closed and other people's threads where removed when they pointed that out.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah. You're one of those.

One of what?

How?

Why?

Explain?

Can you elaborate down to the atoms of existence please?

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

I haven't asked you to prove anything. I've asked you for a rational basis for opposing marriage equality. You've made it clear you don't have one, which is fair enough: if your basis for something is irrational, it's unfair to expect you to explain it.

Mark Tapley

NZT73 wrote: »

The silent NO vote that is gathering like a tsunami to crush you

snollup

Wow, tell me this thread is a wind-up!

To be honest, I would imagine that even your fellow no voters would want you to stop. I reckon that after reading your thoughts the Pope would end up voting yes.

Please either answer the questions you have been asked. Pretty please :rolleyes:

NZT73

Another one of my threads locked.

We are discussing gay marriage and yet not allowed to talk about gay relationships.

Here's a question, Explain how gay and straight relationships are the same?

shruikan2553

NZT73 wrote: »

Another one of my threads locked.

We are discussing gay marriage and yet not allowed to talk about gay relationships.

Here's a question, Explain how gay and straight relationships are the same?

2 people wish to be considered together and viewed as such by the law.

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

Here's a question, Explain how gay and straight relationships are the same?

What makes you think it's OK to ignore questions - nay, to be offended at the very idea of being asked questions - while still demanding answers to questions of your own?

But this is a discussion forum, and some of us don't run crying from the very idea of being asked questions, so I'll bite.

Gay and straight relationships are the same in the respect that they consist of couples who love each other.

Now, any chance of a straight answer (or a gay one, I won't discriminate) to any of the several questions you've studiously avoided?

NZT73

shruikan2553 wrote: »

2 people wish to be considered together and viewed as such by the law.

How are gay and straight relationships the same?

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

How are gay and straight relationships the same?

You've had the question answered twice. Here's how discussion works: if you disagree with the answers, you refute them, using facts and/or logic.

Merely asking the same question again, implying it hasn't been answered - while quoting the reply you were given - isn't discussion, it's hectoring.

Again: if you're trying really hard to prove that you have no reason other than prejudice to oppose marriage equality, you're doing a stellar job.

shruikan2553

NZT73 wrote: »

How are gay and straight relationships the same?

2 people wish to be considered together and viewed as such by the law.

I doubt any 2 relationships between anyone are completely the same. Me and my girlfriend have a different kind of relationship than my friend and his girlfriend.

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

Gay and straight relationships are the same in the respect that they consist of couples who love each other.

Can you define what that loves means (given the dynamics that one relationship is mixed sexes and the other same sex) and then extend what it means within and for the rest of society? I said once before I empathizes with gay people, and you took offense to that. Even so, I'm open minded to your answers.

Do me a favour and compile your answers into a list one question after the other and I'll answer them then. It's hard to answer every question when trying to reply to a number of people.

Sheldons Brain

Straight relationships are a fundamental building block of society and should be supported by society.
Gay relationships may be of some value to those involved but should be of no concern to anyone else.

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've had the question answered twice. Here's how discussion works: if you disagree with the answers, you refute them, using facts and/or logic.

Merely asking the same question again, implying it hasn't been answered - while quoting the reply you were given - isn't discussion, it's hectoring.

Again: if you're trying really hard to prove that you have no reason other than prejudice to oppose marriage equality, you're doing a stellar job.

The answer wasn't good enough

NZT73

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Straight relationships are a fundamental building block of society and should be supported by society.
Gay relationships may be of some value to those involved but should be of no concern to anyone else.

Plus they don't add to the tapestry of society. But that only part of the answer.

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

Can you define what that loves means...

Now, there's a question for the Philosophy forum, not Politics.

Look: you're clearly opposed to allowing gay people to marry. You claim that you have empathy for gay people; it seems a funny sort of empathy that would deny people equal rights.

The zeitgeist is changing. You talked of a tsunami earlier: I think you'll find that the rising tide is that of actual empathy toward same-sex couples - the kind that can't think of a compelling reason to discriminate against them.

And yet, you're fighting against that tide. All I want to know is: why?

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Straight relationships are a fundamental building block of society and should be supported by society.

How, precisely, are straight relationships a fundamental building block of society?

You're going to equate marriage with children again, aren't you?

NZT73 wrote: »

The answer wasn't good enough

Then explain what's wrong with it. You don't quite get how this conversation thing works, do you?

NZT73 wrote: »

Plus they don't add to the tapestry of society. But that only part of the answer.

That doesn't even mean anything. Everyone, by definition, adds to the tapestry of society.

Shrap

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Straight relationships are a fundamental building block of society and should be supported by society.
Gay relationships may be of some value to those involved but should be of no concern to anyone else.

Both statements are wrong. Gay relationships are of massive importance to gay people, their families, their friends and their children - equally to straight relationships. There is no reason to say otherwise. Gay people are as loved as straight people and of course are equally important to everyone except the few, like yourself, who deny love and acceptance to people for no good reason.

Straight relationships are no more fundamental a building block of society than single people of any sexual orientation who aren't in relationships, or gay relationships. Tax payers, every one of them.

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, there's a question for the Philosophy forum, not Politics.

Look: you're clearly opposed to allowing gay people to marry. You claim that you have empathy for gay people; it seems a funny sort of empathy that would deny people equal rights.

The zeitgeist is changing. You talked of a tsunami earlier: I think you'll find that the rising tide is that of actual empathy toward same-sex couples - the kind that can't think of a compelling reason to discriminate against them.

And yet, you're fighting against that tide. All I want to know is: why?

How, precisely, are straight relationships a fundamental building block of society?

You're going to equate marriage with children again, aren't you?

Then explain what's wrong with it. You don't quite get how this conversation thing works, do you?

That doesn't even mean anything. Everyone, by definition, adds to the tapestry of society.

I asked "Can you define what that loves means (given the dynamics that one relationship is mixed sexes and the other same sex) and then extend what it means within and for the rest of society?"
And you still haven't answered the question.

I also asked you for a list of your questions, still haven't done that.

Shrap wrote: »

Both statements are wrong. Gay relationships are of massive importance to gay people, their families, their friends and their children - equally to straight relationships. There is no reason to say otherwise. Gay people are as loved as straight people and of course are equally important to everyone except the few, like yourself, who deny love and acceptance to people for no good reason.

Straight relationships are no more fundamental a building block of society than single people of any sexual orientation who aren't in relationships, or gay relationships. Tax payers, every one of them.

"I cried for weeks when I discovered my son Michael was gay" quoting Eamonn Coghlan in an article today.

Why was he crying for weeks? Because he found out he's son was gay. The truth is no man wants his son to be gay, it's something we just have to accept but the truth is NO MAN WANTS HIS SON TO BE GAY so no, gay relationships are not important to their families it's just something they have to accept. But if one day people had the option to not have a gay son do you think they would take that option? Of course they would. They are not equal to straight relationships, stop fooling yourself.

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

I asked "Can you define what that loves means (given the dynamics that one relationship is mixed sexes and the other same sex) and then extend what it means within and for the rest of society?"
And you still haven't answered the question.

You're asking me to define love?

Seriously?

And you're berating me for not answering questions?

Seriously?!

I also asked you for a list of your questions, still haven't done that.

I'll quote from post #51 of this thread:

You argue that same-sex couples should be denied marriage, because they lack the inherent tendency to produce children. Given that we don't deny marriage to women who are past childbearing age - or to couples who require medical assistance to reproduce - can you explain why it's OK to discriminate against same-sex couples in this regard, while not discriminating against infertile couples?

You also argue that the relationship between a man and a woman is different from the relationship between a man and a man (and, presumably, between a woman and a woman). When asked to explain what the difference is, you refuse to do so. What is the difference, and how does it justify discrimination?

"I cried for weeks when I discovered my son Michael was gay" quoting Eamonn Coghlan in an article today.

Why was he crying for weeks?

Because he knew his son was going to be subject to the bigotry of a substantial (but, happily, shrinking) segment of society that believes his son to be somehow less of a human being simply because of his sexual preferences.

Why do some people hold these abhorrent beliefs? Who knows. Maybe someday science will explain it, or even hold out for a cure. In the meantime, all we can do is marginalise these people in order to minimise the damage they can do.

But if one day people had the option to not have a gay son do you think they would take that option? Of course they would.

There are parts of the world where fathers cry when they have daughters instead of sons, because society holds women in lesser regard.

Very few people would hold such a view up as an argument in favour of their beliefs, mind you.

They are not equal to straight relationships, stop fooling yourself.

Having repeated that for the umpteenth time, now all you have to do is explain why.

NZT73

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're asking me to define love?

Seriously?

And you're berating me for not answering questions?

Seriously?!

You're the one who mentioned it, so you can't explain yourself now? It's at the root of your argument ffs.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because he knew his son was going to be subject to the bigotry of a substantial segment of society that believes his son to be somehow less of a human being simply because of his sexual preferences.

NO He said he wanted his son to have children and be a like a normal son, then he went on to say he was worried about abuse. But his initial sadness was at having a gay son, then having to deal with all the crap it brings (not society, the gay lifestyle).

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why do some people hold these abhorrent beliefs? Who knows. Maybe someday science will explain it, or even hold out for a cure. In the meantime, all we can do is marginalise these people in order to minimise the damage they can do.

There is no cure for knowing the difference between healthy and unhealthy. Go back to the article about the epi genetics of homosexuality. It's an example of mounting evidence that homosexuality is a congenital disorder.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are parts of the world where fathers cry when they have daughters instead of sons, because society holds women in lesser regard.

Very few people would hold such a view up as an argument in favour of their beliefs, mind you.

Again you're comparing apples with oranges. You're deceptive. Your whole argument is a distortion. Reminds me of what you said about equal pay, you distorted that too youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4
youtube.com/watch?v=r4SIEl1j8e4
youtube.com/watch?v=hRfERVPq2VE

Tonight I'm going to write out my answer about how gay and straight relationships are not the same and post it here tomorrow

Btrippn

NZT73 wrote: »

Why was he crying for weeks? Because he found out he's son was gay. The truth is no man wants his son to be gay, it's something we just have to accept but the truth is NO MAN WANTS HIS SON TO BE GAY so no, gay relationships are not important to their families it's just something they have to accept. But if one day people had the option to not have a gay son do you think they would take that option? Of course they would. They are not equal to straight relationships, stop fooling yourself.

Are you saying that the only marriages of any importance are those that bare children and happiness for others? What about couples that consciously choose not to have any children? Or have you considered the people that for some misfortunate biological reason simply cannot conceive? Certainly some gay couples not fall into the later category too! There are countless failed marriages in Ireland as well, have these people contributed to your ideal society? What happiness does divorce contribute to families? Do you question these peoples agendas for marrying one-another? No, and neither do I.

You’re argument is flawed; this so-called “tapestry of society” that you refer to was woven in the medieval period and it belongs there. Nobody needs to defend their reasons for wanting to marry but everyone should be given the right chose to get married if they wish and we have no reason to deprive people of equal same rights.

Unfortunately for this father he does not have the option of a heterosexual child. if he cannot accept his son's lifestyle then he will forever be in torment much like yourself. How can a bitter medivilst like you speak on behalf of every father? All a good father wants is for his son to happy and to have the same rights as his siblings. If marriage makes him happy he should be aloud to marry who he please.

oscarBravo

NZT73 wrote: »

...homosexuality is a congenital disorder.

And, just like that, the conversation was over.

I'm having trouble deciding which will make me happier when this referendum passes: the joy it will bring to same-sex couples, or the anguish it will cause to people like you. It's a close thing.

johnnyskeleton

NZT73 wrote: »

Another one of my threads locked.

We are discussing gay marriage and yet not allowed to talk about gay relationships.

Here's a question, Explain how gay and straight relationships are the same?

NZTZ73, please don't comment on the moderation on another forum. This forum is intended for serious debate, so you would do well to engage constructively with other posters. If you don't, more severe sanctions will be handed out

Btrippn

NZT73 wrote: »

Tonight I'm going to write out my answer about how gay and straight relationships are not the same and post it here tomorrow

How much time have you spent consumed by other people's way of life? Questioning and challenging them when it is not your place. Searching and finding answers that you cannot accept so you find comfort in others like you or theories that you can accept. Evidently you've wasted a lot of time.

You're agenda is not to understand homosexuality but to reject it instead. You should be more concerned with your own relationships and your obsession with questioning other people's lifestyles.

Shrap

NZT73 wrote: »

NO He said he wanted his son to have children and be a like a normal son, then he went on to say he was worried about abuse. But his initial sadness was at having a gay son, then having to deal with all the crap it brings (not society, the gay lifestyle).

Well indeed, having such prescriptive expectations about one's own children's path through life causes many unimaginative parents a lot of heartache when it turns out none of them are going to be a "mini-me" version of the doting adult.

This reminds me of the farming family of 7 girls and 1 boy I knew, who although 3 of the girls were running the farm perfectly happily and well, insisted that the boy took it over. The pressure to conform was such that he promptly ran off to join the Hare Krishnas, much to the horror of his Catholic god-fearing parents. I'd say there was 2 weeks of tears there too.

Anybody who sets out to have children with the expectation that they will be provided with grandchildren and that their lives shall not deviate from what the parents consider normal, is in for one hell of a shock. My youngest (13) has constant and ongoing difficulties with his father (we're separated due to his controlling and overbearing behaviour) for this very reason. Youngest gets earring, Dad flips out and won't talk to him for a week. Youngest gets hair cut Dad doesn't approve of, same effect. Youngest is made to comb hair in particular fashion while with Dad. Can't wear a hat. Can't wear tracksuit pants. Can't....etc, etc. His Dad's horror of difference (to him) means that he is in a permanent state of shock unless the boys complies

I am waiting with baited breath to see how he'll deal with my youngest being gay, as it is very much starting to look like that's a possibility. I'll be fine, but his Dad has NOTIONS. Unbending NOTIONS about HOW PEOPLE SHOULD BE. So it will be his problem, and he may shed a few tears, but that's what happens when parents don't have the imagination to think that their children won't turn out to be what you consider normal. Since I don't have a line in the sand for what is "normal", I'm loving how my kids are turning out, in all their glorious individuality.

Tonight I'm going to write out my answer about how gay and straight relationships are not the same and post it here tomorrow

Hope you'll avoid telling gay people that they're somehow defective. That would be hurtful, unkind and untrue.

oscarBravo

Shrap wrote: »

Hope you'll avoid telling gay people that they're somehow defective.

Too late.

Shrap

oscarBravo wrote: »

Too late.

Yeah, spotted that when I read it again. All the evidence in the world wouldn't change some people's minds when they KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT and have such rigid ideas about HOW PEOPLE SHOULD BE. Terribly sad way to live. We only have the one life after all....

NZT73

Btrippn wrote: »

How much time have you spent consumed by other people's way of life? Questioning and challenging them when it is not your place. Searching and finding answers that you cannot accept so you find comfort in others like you or theories that you can accept. Evidently you've wasted a lot of time.

You're agenda is not to understand homosexuality but to reject it instead. You should be more concerned with your own relationships and your obsession with questioning other people's lifestyles.

I do seek to understand homosexuality. Do a search for 'the epi genetics of homosexuality' and you will understand it too

The up coming referendum on marriage equality concerns everybody not just the self anointed hypocrites trying to tell everyone how to vote.

We all live together in society so the actions of one can affect us all. So we all need to take an interest.

Shrap wrote: »

Well indeed, having such prescriptive expectations about one's own children's path through life causes many unimaginative parents a lot of heartache when it turns out none of them are going to be a "mini-me" version of the doting adult.

Why do you have to be insulting because a father has expectations for his son? Every father has dreams for his son and I doubt any of them involve a dream of his son cruising gay clubs in Hollywood.

Shrap wrote: »

Anybody who sets out to have children with the expectation that they will be provided with grandchildren and that their lives shall not deviate from what the parents consider normal, is in for one hell of a shock.

What an awful expectation, that your family will continue after you die, Darwin help us!

Shrap wrote: »

My youngest (13) has constant and ongoing difficulties with his father (we're separated due to his controlling and overbearing behaviour) for this very reason. Youngest gets earring, Dad flips out and won't talk to him for a week. Youngest gets hair cut Dad doesn't approve of, same effect. Youngest is made to comb hair in particular fashion while with Dad. Can't wear a hat. Can't wear tracksuit pants. Can't....etc, etc. His Dad's horror of difference (to him) means that he is in a permanent state of shock unless the boys complies

Sounds like a man trying to raise his son. That a father should have influence over his son is that really such a bad thing? The son should just be raised by American movies maybe?

Shrap wrote: »

I am waiting with baited breath to see how he'll deal with my youngest being gay, as it is very much starting to look like that's a possibility. I'll be fine, but his Dad has NOTIONS. Unbending NOTIONS about HOW PEOPLE SHOULD BE.

It sounds like the father has integrity, again, no straight man wants his son to be gay. They only accept it because they have to

Shrap wrote: »

So it will be his problem, and he may shed a few tears, but that's what happens when parents don't have the imagination to think that their children won't turn out to be what you consider <b>normal</b>. Since I don't have a line in the sand for what is "normal", I'm loving how my kids are turning out, in all their glorious individuality.

Just a quote from wiki about fetus development and what is <b>Normal<b/> "Epigenetic marks are intended to promote normal sex development while in fetal development"


[/QUOTE]Hope you'll avoid telling gay people that they're somehow defective. That would be hurtful, unkind and untrue.[/QUOTE]

Nope. I'm going to be critical, thoughtful, integral and honest

NZT73

Btrippn wrote: »

How much time have you spent consumed by other people's way of life? Questioning and challenging them when it is not your place. Searching and finding answers that you cannot accept so you find comfort in others like you or theories that you can accept. Evidently you've wasted a lot of time.

You're agenda is not to understand homosexuality but to reject it instead. You should be more concerned with your own relationships and your obsession with questioning other people's lifestyles.

I do seek to understand homosexuality. Do a search for 'the epi genetics of homosexuality' and you will understand it too

The up coming referendum on marriage equality concerns everybody not just the self anointed hypocrites trying to tell everyone how to vote.

We all live together in society so the actions of one can affect us all. So we all need to take an interest.

Shrap wrote: »

Well indeed, having such prescriptive expectations about one's own children's path through life causes many unimaginative parents a lot of heartache when it turns out none of them are going to be a "mini-me" version of the doting adult.

Why do you have to be insulting because a father has expectations for his son? Every father has dreams for his son and I doubt any of them involve a dream of his son cruising gay clubs in Hollywood.

Shrap wrote: »

Anybody who sets out to have children with the expectation that they will be provided with grandchildren and that their lives shall not deviate from what the parents consider normal, is in for one hell of a shock.

What an awful expectation, that your family will continue after you die, Darwin help us!

Shrap wrote: »

My youngest (13) has constant and ongoing difficulties with his father (we're separated due to his controlling and overbearing behaviour) for this very reason. Youngest gets earring, Dad flips out and won't talk to him for a week. Youngest gets hair cut Dad doesn't approve of, same effect. Youngest is made to comb hair in particular fashion while with Dad. Can't wear a hat. Can't wear tracksuit pants. Can't....etc, etc. His Dad's horror of difference (to him) means that he is in a permanent state of shock unless the boys complies

Sounds like a man trying to raise his son. That a father should have influence over his son is that really such a bad thing? The son should just be raised by American movies maybe?

Shrap wrote: »

I am waiting with baited breath to see how he'll deal with my youngest being gay, as it is very much starting to look like that's a possibility. I'll be fine, but his Dad has NOTIONS. Unbending NOTIONS about HOW PEOPLE SHOULD BE.

It sounds like the father has integrity, again, no straight man wants his son to be gay. They only accept it because they have to

Shrap wrote: »

So it will be his problem, and he may shed a few tears, but that's what happens when parents don't have the imagination to think that their children won't turn out to be what you consider <b>normal</b>. Since I don't have a line in the sand for what is "normal", I'm loving how my kids are turning out, in all their glorious individuality.

Just a quote from wiki about fetus development and what is <b>Normal<b/> "Epigenetic marks are intended to promote normal sex development while in fetal development"

Shrap wrote: »

Hope you'll avoid telling gay people that they're somehow defective. That would be hurtful, unkind and untrue.

Nope. I'm going to be critical, thoughtful, integral and honest

Shrap

NZT73 wrote: »

I do seek to understand homosexuality. Do a search for 'the epi genetics of homosexuality' and you will understand it too

No thanks. I have no interest in where homosexuality comes from, I just accept that some people are.

Why do you have to be insulting because a father has expectations for his son? Every father has dreams for his son and I doubt any of them involve a dream of his son cruising gay clubs in Hollywood.

What an awful expectation, that your family will continue after you die, Darwin help us!

I wasn't being insulting to suggest that narrow mindedness causes problems between parents and children. I think it's problematic for both.

As for your "cruising" comment, I'm pretty sure no parents dream of their heterosexual progeny patrolling Ibiza looking for the ride either, but it happens, much to the shock and disgust of some parents who "never thought their children would DO such a thing!". Lack of imagination, right there. Which in turn, leads to a lack of awareness about how far their kids might go if you fail to educate your children in self-respect, whatever their sexuality.

As for the continuation of the species. I had most men figured to have left this tribalism at the cave entrance, but perhaps not. If this bloke's son turned out to be unable to have children, would he have cried for two weeks? Who knows. Maybe he would be that stuck on the notion of his genes being so very, very important in the general scheme of things. I personally think he just had a problem with some prescriptive expectations that shouldn't have any room in parenting, in my view.

Sounds like a man trying to raise his son. That a father should have influence over his son is that really such a bad thing? The son should just be raised by American movies maybe?

It sounds like the father has integrity, again, no straight man wants his son to be gay. They only accept it because they have to

Y'know, I see it from a child-centred approach. If the child is made to feel "wrong" by their self-expression, and the parent considers that the child is somehow a reflection of their own self-expression who should be forced to think/act/look the way the parent wants, then nobody is happy and the child becomes damaged by their parent's expectations.

Are you a parent?

Btrippn

NZT73
You’re argument essentially portrays homosexuality as a flaw, both biologically and socially. Moreover you seem to think that you speak on behalf of every father. You act as though you have explored the debts of scientific theories in search of the cause of homosexuality, yet refer to two articles to illustrate both points. Superb! You’re argument is weak. You’re abusing the name of science and fatherhood to highlight your own dismay. Your phobia is blatant so why conceal it with talks of epigenetic and fatherhood? This futile argument is over you deserve no more attention from me. I will admit though that you have been great practice for the GAMSAT (medical entrance exams) , God forbid you ever receive medical treatment from a homosexual.