- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,113
- 6,336
- AFL Club
- Sydney
If you say. Bit hard to dispute 333 sample and between 16% and 57% sample prevalence. The answer is yes there is a connection. If you want to believe no that's fine.....do.
Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread
- Thread starter Borough Blood
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If you say. Bit hard to dispute 333 sample and between 16% and 57% sample prevalence. The answer is yes there is a connection. If you want to believe no that's fine.....do.
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Yeah, don't get me wrong the regular twisting of our words and requests for citations and links ad nauseum and then largely ignoring or dismissing whatever isnt in their worldview, while thoroughly enjoyable, I'm keen to focus on the footy now. Been getting increasingly childish.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
[
When it's been pointed out twice that you don't understand the numbers you're posting, posting them again with the same misinterpretation doesn't change anything .
- Jul 5, 2012
- 27,123
- 45,069
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
OK this is all getting pretty arcane. Happy Mardi Gras everyone.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,113
- 6,336
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I can honestly say that I've never experienced anything like it. Absolutely mind boggling tbh. Dishonest claims in my name to a political agenda. Last one something along the lines I must be a supporter of chemical castration. What a joke.
Yeah can't wait for the footy. Hopefully BS stops then
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,551
- 24,452
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You've nailed the scientific method.
Despite every word that youv'e written in this thread, you're not bigoted against homosexuality at all. Heck, you've even conveniently got a gay future son-in-law, a gay ex co-worker and gay friends to prove it.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,113
- 6,336
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You've nailed the scientific method.
"conveniently"
Mmmmmm I'll take the comments at face value cautiously and believe use of the word conveniently was accidental. I make all my acquaintances based on who they are not what they do in bed.
I wish he was a future son in law. She doesn't want to get married
GotTheGoodes
Bloods
- Moderator
- #658
This.
Love is love. Despite any differences of opinion I wish all of you reading this the ability to love, be loved & share it with the world & those important to you.
Sister?
An old man ****ing an old woman doesn’t produce a kid either. Neither does a sterile man, or woman.
A person with a genetic predisposition to cancer is a genetic aberration. So are people with recessive genes for infertility, and various other genetic conditions. Are you going to prevent them from marrying/otherwise procreating?
On the contrary. I just don’t think it justifies discrimination. You’ve never clarified why you’re happy for other people who can’t procreate naturally to marry, nor why you’re happy for people with genetic aberrations to procreate. Why are they different?
It’s not the truth I’m disputing, it’s your terrible logic.
I’ve never seen anyone so boldly try to claim victimhood when arguing that homosexuality is genetic wastage and that we should disallow same sex parenting because it means more gay people.
Also, I never said you support chemical castration. Just that you use the same logic as those who have in the past. You don’t need to chemically castrate homosexuals, you just don’t want them to be allowed to be parents.
You have literally endorsed restricting both reproductive and legal rights to people on the basis of their genetic aberrations. That’s literally eugenics. Fairly mild by historical standards, but eugenics nonetheless. You do not get to claim victimhood.
- Apr 26, 2016
- 39,949
- 82,500
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Moderator
- #660
Why have 27 pages been required for a topic that should be as simple as: great stuff Swans.
It's not politicising sport. It's not going to effect the players form in any way. They will literally just stand on a float in a parade for less than an hour on a Saturday afternoon.
Everyone will live.
It's not politicising sport. It's not going to effect the players form in any way. They will literally just stand on a float in a parade for less than an hour on a Saturday afternoon.
Everyone will live.
Good question. Apparently some of us on this board think homosexuals are ok to be friends with, but they shouldn’t be parents in case they produce gay kids. Wouldn’t want more homosexuals running around would we? Not part of our “genetic purpose” apparently.
You’re right though, and it’s good to see some sanity return to the thread!
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,113
- 6,336
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Ll
There is only one person spewing lies and BS twisting words to your own device and that's you. You just don't understand or don't want to. Doesn't stop you spewing your vitriol. Couldn't give a damn what you think about me claiming victimhood. Grow up.
Marriage is man and woman not same sex. They don't qualify and never did because they don't meet the conditions. Tough. Legal right? Yeah sure secure them by legislation unrelated to marriage tradition. No inequity and marriage tradition in tact. You don't want that because anything other than what you want is discrimination and to be vilified. Grow up.
Children? Prior to last few days I had no opinion and felt that same sex were likely to raise children no different to heterosexual couples. You were the one that forced me to review the material so your involvement and my research has now concluded that same sex won't raise children without impairment. So thank you. Children have a right to be free of abuse, sexual abuse, emotional disturbance, and impairment to their natural sexual orientation whatever that may be. All children will be either adopted or surrogacy and I've already pointed out that either or both of 'adopted child syndrome' or 'Cinderella effect' will have impact always for children in same sex marriages. Impairment. Lesbians will always be better placed because at least one will be genetic birth mother which is critically important.
You are yet to be parent so you have no idea the importance of a child's rearing. It's not a effing game or a toy or a coveted prize to parade about the parents needs or rights. It's always entirely about a child's needs and welfare. When a child who would be 97% heterosexual instead becomes same sex orientation by virtue of environment then you impair that child's natural upbringing. And we are talking about up to 50% being same sex oriented. You say it's wonderful we have more same sex children. I say it may very well be but I take huge umbridge when a child's life is impaired to something different to what was natural for them by direct influence of parent . A man and a woman compliment each other by multiple factors to create the entire package and that will never be reproduced in a same sex couple to detriment of child. Impairment. There is clear anecdotal data to support this where lesbians fail to have true paternal models for boys and gays fail to have true maternal models for girls. Impairment. Greater promiscuity, greater propensity to dissolution - impairment.
Legal rights being as they are with reason adoption will happen for those who qualify and surrogacy fir those inclined. I can't stop it and neither I should because all legal rights in regard these things must be equal. But the question here isn't me wishing to change law - I don't. But it's about considered opinion for child's welfare. My considered opinion is that same sex will have higher incidence of impairment. Excuse me for wanting what's best for child but I do. Same sex community appears sometimes to be so intense to the fight for rights that children's welfare is lost in the mire.
This is my considered opinion. You don't like it and I know you won't then tough.
There is only one person spewing lies and BS twisting words to your own device and that's you. You just don't understand or don't want to. Doesn't stop you spewing your vitriol. Couldn't give a damn what you think about me claiming victimhood. Grow up.
Marriage is man and woman not same sex. They don't qualify and never did because they don't meet the conditions. Tough. Legal right? Yeah sure secure them by legislation unrelated to marriage tradition. No inequity and marriage tradition in tact. You don't want that because anything other than what you want is discrimination and to be vilified. Grow up.
Children? Prior to last few days I had no opinion and felt that same sex were likely to raise children no different to heterosexual couples. You were the one that forced me to review the material so your involvement and my research has now concluded that same sex won't raise children without impairment. So thank you. Children have a right to be free of abuse, sexual abuse, emotional disturbance, and impairment to their natural sexual orientation whatever that may be. All children will be either adopted or surrogacy and I've already pointed out that either or both of 'adopted child syndrome' or 'Cinderella effect' will have impact always for children in same sex marriages. Impairment. Lesbians will always be better placed because at least one will be genetic birth mother which is critically important.
You are yet to be parent so you have no idea the importance of a child's rearing. It's not a effing game or a toy or a coveted prize to parade about the parents needs or rights. It's always entirely about a child's needs and welfare. When a child who would be 97% heterosexual instead becomes same sex orientation by virtue of environment then you impair that child's natural upbringing. And we are talking about up to 50% being same sex oriented. You say it's wonderful we have more same sex children. I say it may very well be but I take huge umbridge when a child's life is impaired to something different to what was natural for them by direct influence of parent . A man and a woman compliment each other by multiple factors to create the entire package and that will never be reproduced in a same sex couple to detriment of child. Impairment. There is clear anecdotal data to support this where lesbians fail to have true paternal models for boys and gays fail to have true maternal models for girls. Impairment. Greater promiscuity, greater propensity to dissolution - impairment.
Legal rights being as they are with reason adoption will happen for those who qualify and surrogacy fir those inclined. I can't stop it and neither I should because all legal rights in regard these things must be equal. But the question here isn't me wishing to change law - I don't. But it's about considered opinion for child's welfare. My considered opinion is that same sex will have higher incidence of impairment. Excuse me for wanting what's best for child but I do. Same sex community appears sometimes to be so intense to the fight for rights that children's welfare is lost in the mire.
This is my considered opinion. You don't like it and I know you won't then tough.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Parents with very family history of intellectual disabilities. Clear impairment for the child. Allowed to have kids together, yes or no?
GotTheGoodes
Bloods
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,113
- 6,336
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Legally sure they are. But is it impairment then yes perhaps depending on disability. Extreme ASD as example will dramatically influence.Will there ever be intervention no there won't.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Families with similar high risk profiles of disease. Clear impairment. Sound they have kids?
Kennedy Parker
🎨𝖆𝖗𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙🎨
- Moderator
- #667
This looks to be less a thread about the club and the Mardi Gras float and turned into more a general social/political discussion, hence moved to the BSB.
Be sure to respect the 'play nice' tag - no personal abuse, attack the argument not the person, if there is report it.
Be sure to respect the 'play nice' tag - no personal abuse, attack the argument not the person, if there is report it.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,113
- 6,336
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The point your heading to no doubt is to say that these families choose to have children but overcome adversity/ impairment. So why not same sex couples. The same principle applies uniformly. These families choose to take risk and prioritise their needs over child. That is a selfish choice always but choice is made cognizant of the risk and downside. Where is that line?
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Not in a situation like having homosexual parents where a large body of evidence shows that outcomes for children in those households don't fare any worse than children from heterosexual family units.
Refer to any one of the links I posted a few pages back for mtooler.
RW
Cancelled
10k Posts
Sydney Forum Service Medal
Sydney Swans - Jake Lloyd 2020 Player Sponsor
BeanCoiNFT Investor
Sydney Swans - Harry Cunningham 2019 Player Sponsor
Ex-Moderator
Sydney Swans - Gary Rohan Player Sponsor 2018
Sydney Swans - George Hewett Player Sponsor 2017
Sydney Swans - Callum Mills Player Sponsor 2016
Podcaster
- Jan 11, 2003
- 16,283
- 19,093
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Her queer identity is something she cares about, yet she's willing to set that aside to be with a guy? If that isn't evidence of a genetic plan, then I don't know what is, just saying.
Her queer identity is something she cares about, yet she's willing to set that aside to be with a guy? If that isn't evidence of a genetic plan, then I don't know what is, just saying.
Queer does not mean exclusively into the same sex. Bi, pans, etc are a thing.
Also, we aren’t planning on having kids. How’s that for a genetic plan?
Last edited:
There you are again, saying homosexuality is an impairment.
Nuff said. That’s a bigoted position. You won’t agree, but neither would a white supremecist. “I’m not bigoted, my views are backed by science!!!”
Oh, incidentally, you still haven’t explained why it’s not ok for gay people to have kids, but it is ok for poor people (being born into poverty is definitely an impairment compared to being born into wealth), people with histories of genetic disease, low IQ, etc.
And I’ll remind you, you never proved that same sex couples make kids who would have been straight gay - you showed a higher proportion, yes, but with no controls for genetic inheritance. If the children are biological children of one of the parents then of COURSE they’re more likely to be gay. This is what I’m talking about when I say you haven’t even understood your own studies.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,113
- 6,336
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Now that the thread is secluded I'm disinterested in contributing. It would be like choosing to have a private conversation with you. I'm more discerning than that for obvious reasons. I wondered at outset why your likes would be as low as 20% of posts. I now know.
Ps a word of advice. Don't go unicorn hunting. The third wheel creates massive complications for a relationship and occasionally be it's demise. I give you this advice as an expert on a relationship website where I charge for my advice. The 30 sec thrill (I assume that is about your limit) is rarely worth it
Ps a word of advice. Don't go unicorn hunting. The third wheel creates massive complications for a relationship and occasionally be it's demise. I give you this advice as an expert on a relationship website where I charge for my advice. The 30 sec thrill (I assume that is about your limit) is rarely worth it
It's never a good sign for the strength or confidence in your argument when you run away from the fight whilst throwing out a lame, high school level sex/penis jab.
Holy shit, did you just bring up my likes ratio?
Let’s play the “I don’t understand stats” game with our star performer, the aptly named “puke”.
The vast majority of my posts were made before the “like” function was introduced to BigFooty. I joined in 2008 FFS. Now, I don’t know what my “like ratio” to posts is since the function was introduced. It’s not something I’ve ever bothered to look at, I didn’t even know you could until this post! It may be lower than yours, it may be higher than yours, I don’t care, I just want to point out how poorly you understand statistics - or at least how unwilling you are to look into them deeper when they support your position.
Puke everyone, the guy with a 140+ IQ who consistently misunderstands every stat he recites.
