Comments by Appleby

201. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187679 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Comment #187677 by Mitchell Gilks:

Secondly rules of parimony and occam's razor dictates that you assume all things are equal until given justification to assume otherwise

Between homosexual and heterosexual parenting? Are you serious? Perhaps I should also assume being raised by orangutans is equal until proven otherwise.

202. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187675 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Some idiot comes to me and says "there is no reason to assume the difference is bad".

...
...

203. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187671 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Comment #187666 by Mitchell Gilks

Some idiot comes to me and says there's no difference between homosexual parenting and heterosexual parenting.

I ask him to prove it. He tries. I say it's not enough. He tries again. I still say it's not enough. Why? The idiot is trying to prove a negative.

Then he tells me *I* have to prove there is a difference. Go figure.

204. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187665 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Comment #187664 by Mitchell Gilks

I'm not even going to bother explaining (I don't know how many times already) my position on this. If you've made up your mind that I'm a bigot, nothing will get through your head.

205. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187663 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Comment #187660 by Tezcatlipoca

This is what happens when someone chimes in based on the latest page, thinking they know everything.

206. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187659 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #187652 by Mitchell Gilks

I'm not committing the naturalistic fallacy here. All I'm saying is that there is a difference (some difference, whatever, a difference nonetheless) between heterosexuals and homosexuals (are you really denying this?) and we do not know what the consequences of that are when it comes to raising children. You claim there are no differences whatsoever but in that *you're* committing a fallacy in trying to prove a negative.

207. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187650 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Comment #187646 by al-rawandi

I'm going to have to ignore your posts. You are clearly incapable of intellectual discourse and grasping simple concepts. I'm also tired of your vituperations.

208. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187640 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Comment #187638 by Mitchell Gilks

Because it's different from everyday children with real, biological parents (one male, one female) who aren't, under any circumstances, deemed to be inadequate for being heterosexual.

The thing is, with homosexuals, we simply don't know and we cannot ignore the fact that they are homosexuals.

209. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187635 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Comment #187630 by Mitchell Gilks

Because everything else being equal (let's assume the heteros are not pedophiles, drunks, smokers or whatnot) gay parents still have their homosexuality to account for.

Heterosexual adoptions are similar to children with biological parents (one male, one female) so there's no discrepancy there.

210. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187633 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Comment #187628 by al-rawandi

Simply on account of the children's likelihood of future unemployment and delinquency? That proves nothing and certainly doesn't point to gay adoptions as a solution.

211. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187629 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 11:58 am

Comment #187626 by Peacebeuponme

From what I am aware of, the studies bear me out. Care homes are notorious for producing delinquents. I have not read similar stories about gay raised children. But the onus is not on me, its on you. You think we should not 'risk' the gay option, so you must have a good reason why you think the potential harm of a care home upbringing is less.

Well what you are "aware of" doesn't constitute proof. And I already told you, the reason is that in a gay home, one parent of the opposite sex is missing. I THINK this accounts for something. Hence the POSSIBILITY of psychological damage which I would PREFER not to expose children to.

212. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187627 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 11:54 am

Comment #187622 by Mitchell Gilks

Did you not read my Comment #187619?

How can there also be a possibility of psychological damage due to homosexual parents in a heterosexual home???

213. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187620 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 11:43 am

Comment #187618 by Mitchell Gilks

Like I said before, I wouldn't risk the children even on the possibility; which is why I PREFERRED straight parent adoptions.

214. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187619 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 11:42 am

Comment #187617 by Mitchell Gilks

The POSSIBLE risk of psychological damage due to adoption by HOMOSEXUAL parents cannot be ruled out. By definition, this does not apply to adoption by straight parents.

215. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187616 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 11:34 am

Have you found some magic state of affairs between 4 and 5 that I am not aware of? I can say I think I do know which of these two is prefereable. It is only your homophobia that says otherwise.

Are you so ignorant to assume that there is absolutely no difference between 3 and 4 or that even if there is a (detrimental) difference, it could not possibly be worse than 5?

Wow! Christ, you are on a mission here. Glad to see you realised straight away that you don't know your arse from your elbow on this one.

Interesting counter-argument. Are you saying psychological damage (on account of adoption by gay parents) is simply not possible or that whatever the risk may be, children should still be subjected to it; but heaven forbid not the evil Dickensian care home!!!!

216. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187610 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 11:10 am

Comment #187594 by Peacebeuponme

I cited the example of a street urchin or a care home resident as examples of those who would be better off with gay parents

This is your argument in support of gay adoption? This is your "proof"? How does this weigh against possible life-long psychological damage? No, no, no... let me do the honours...

But Appleby, where's your "proof" of that???!!!

Once again, here's my answer. I still don't think children should be subjected to even the possibility of such damage (which doesn't exist with straight parents who let's say are not pedophiles, smokers, drinkers and whatnot to compensate - as if gays couldn't be like that too).

Furthermore, I don't support it when the kids are too young to decide for themselves if they *want* to grow up in a gay home. This is why to me, a straight home is always PREFERABLE in adoptions. And for the umpteenth time, I don't know if having no parents is better or not (and you obviously don't know either). All you have is an "in my gut" feeling.

Answered ages ago. Gay adoption is preferable because children are either too small to survive alone, have to steal to survive, or risk care home abuse.

What is this, a Dickens novel? Is this more of your proof why gay adoptions should be encouraged? Do you think *I* should be in support of gay adoptions? And would that have anything to do with gay rights, might I ask?

217. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187592 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 10:41 am

Comment #187586 by mordacious1

The problem is, you (and many others here) are too intolerant of dissenting opinion and quick to label people based on your preconceptions about them rather than fact. I don't know if this is due to the impetuousness of youth or incorrigibility of old age - in which case it may be condoned - or something worse.

218. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187576 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 10:22 am

Comment #187569 by al-rawandi

What I find funny is, despite your unequivocal support for homosexuals and their rights, you seem to take great offense at being called one.

And, you obviously have not read the previous posts so I'm not going to bother answering the same questions over again.

219. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187568 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 10:17 am

Comment #187564 by mordacious1

You're a fool and would believe anything anyone told you I was. Otherwise, you're probably just too stupid to understand English.

And I really think al-rawandi is a HOMOSEXUAL given how strongly he seems to support them.

220. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187563 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 10:09 am

Comment #187557 by al-rawandi

It's not okay for me to use the term 'homo' on you (like it's offensive) but it's okay for you and others to call me a homophobe (like it's offensive)?

Ok, why shouldn't we allow gays to adopt?

I never said we shouldn't. I just said I think straight parent adoptions are preferable.

221. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187551 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:54 am

Comment #187545 by Peacebeuponme

You do not accept that there are, at present, orphans and children in care homes that are not going to be adopted by straight parents. You are living on another planet mate. The world is crying out for more people to adopt. I brought the issue up to show you how silly your base view that we should not 'risk' gay adoption was. I don't know how I cna be clearer, but if we don't 'risk' this more children will remain unadopted.

I never denied there's an adoption problem. I'm just not sure the ONLY solution is to permit gay adoptions. We can encourage more straight parents to adopt, especially if there's a possible risk of psychological damage on account of gay parents (which cannot be discounted).

If you cannot judge whether or not gay parents are better than no parents, you really are a sad fuck.

So do you know the answer to this question or not? Or are you dodging it?

How does one 'support' homosexuality exactly? I may ask how you 'support' black people, or women. In this context indifference and support are pretty much the same thing, and are both the opposite of 'oppose'. You are far away form being indifferent my friend.

Well that's easy. Support for homosexuality is pretty much what has been going in this thread (by everyone except me, of course). You still haven't answered my question, though.

222. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187541 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:42 am

Comment #187538 by al-rawandi

And al-rawandi must be a homo.

223. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187535 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #187521 by Quetzalcoatl

Then why add the additional concern of possible psychological damage on account of homosexual parents?

224. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187520 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:23 am

Comment #187516 by Mitchell Gilks

I never used the word ghetto or segregation or even meant anything like that. You are misquoting me like so many others. Again and again. I'm really getting sick of it.

225. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187517 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:22 am

Comment #187510 by Mitchell Gilks

These supposed counter-arguments have already been addressed, sorry.

226. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187515 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:20 am

Comment #187511 by Colwyn Abernathy

I know. I mentioned this in Comment #187478 by Appleby. I simply don't think it's worth taking the risk when the lives of children are involved just to appease homosexuals.

227. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187508 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:14 am

al-rawandi wrote:

Now I agree that bestiality is about abuse of an animal which cannot give consent. And frankly mentioning that in the same breath as anti-homosexual propaganda says alot about appleby.

So I guess you were lying when you said:

You need not be in support of homosexuality.

Because I can't remember posting anything that said gays should be denied their rights.

228. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187504 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:09 am

Comment #187503 by Mitchell Gilks

You are obviously not up-to-date with the posts. I understand, really. Reading (with comprehension) is not easy.

229. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187502 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:04 am

Comment #187499 by Colwyn Abernathy

Firstly, your citations are a little dated. And second, because we can't be sure gay parenting has no ill-effects on children (the "proving the negative" part), I didn't think we should take the risk with children GIVEN THE FACT THAT there clearly is a difference between gay parents and straight parents (i.e. there is no opposite sex partner). This simply means, I would PREFER children be adopted by straight parents. And I DO NOT KNOW if having no parents (not that this is necessarily going to be the alternative) is better.

Are you understanding the importance of context now?

230. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187496 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 8:50 am

Comment #187495 by Colwyn Abernathy

You wondered if it was harmful if children were adopted by gay parents. It isn't.

Really? Can you prove this negative?

231. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187491 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 8:34 am

Comment #187488 by Mitchell Gilks

So you condone bestiality too?

232. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187489 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #187484 by Colwyn Abernathy

False dichotamy. Assumes children ONLY get their information from their parents, which they don't. As we all do, we get our roles from all sorts of people.

Taken out of context. No surprise. Is this your thing? Trawling through posts and cherry-picking parts to make strawmen out of?

233. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187487 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 8:28 am

Comment #187483 by Peacebeuponme

I don't want to go round in circles, but, given that I already stated at the outset that all other things being equal I considered heterosexual adoption prefereable, I was making the point that, the real dichotomy is between gay parents and no parents. You still haven't given a good reason why gays should not adopt orphans or those in care homes.

This thing about "no parents" was brought up by you, not me. I didn't accept your assumption that kids who are not adopted by gays will somehow necessarily have no (straight) parents to adopt them. Furthermore, I already told you, I DO NOT KNOW whether no parents would be better than gay parents (Comment #187410 by Appleby). And I asked if you knew... well?

Interesting double-negative. To not be in support, must mean to oppose though surely? To oppose homosexuality, as I see it and in common with all other forms or interference in other's lives where it is not wanted) is not ok.

No, I could be indifferent. But you still have not answered my question. Let me put it this way then... *should* I be in support of homosexuality?

234. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187482 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 8:19 am

Read your own post, AllanW.

Comment #187371 by AllanW on June 2, 2008 at 4:34 am
avatarComment #187365 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 3:54 am
Well what if I liked fucking my cat in the privacy of my own house? Would you draw the line there? Based on what?

Ok, I'll bite and go through this as slowly as necessary for you to follow it.

If it's your own home, you live alone, have no real effect upon your neighbours and confine your activity solely to that place then I personally have no wish to stop your activity. You might want to think about your own attitudes to inter-species relationships but that's a discussion or debate to be had.

The circumstances change somewhat if we flex the parameters above. If you have children in the house that may be influenced by your proclivities or you deliberately parade your activity in front of them (thereby implicitly sanctioning their adoption of this practice), I'd be sceptical of your sanity, as you would be in effect preparing them for an anti-social existence and ostracism. You know that your predilection for fucking cats is not welcomed by most of society yet you go ahead and teach your kids to practise this bestiality. Please note that I'm not condemning bestiality; my own views are my own and I don't seek to urge you to adopt them but I'm arguing here solely about the effect upon your kids.

If you decided that more people should understand the benefits of cat fucking and took to the streets to evangelise your belief or took to writing and promoting cat fucking as a lifestyle (i.e. took your practice out of the house in private) then I personally would respect your free speech rights to do so. I stress that the writing or speaking activities would be acceptable but fucking the cat in public would fall under public lewdness laws and be rightfully prosecuted.

And if you fucked the cat too loudly in your home (disturbing your neighbours) or did it where passers-by could unwittingly witness your acts then again I would support the authorities in enforcing your adherence to public order rules.

In short I support your personal choice where it infringes no laws and does not damage impressionable minors within your responsibility. The basis for curtailing your activity is 'public acts' and minors. Again I stress the 'curtailing of your activity'; not that you 'shouldn't' fuck cats or it's 'wrong' to fuck cats. If you think it's acceptable, that's your concern and tells anyone else who knows your proclivities something about you. Consider that. But I wouldn't try to stop you from doing it in the circumstances outlined above.

235. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187478 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #187392 by AllanW

you asserted previously that you were not sure we should 'risk' gay adoption. I'm trying to explore why

True. And if you read my post carefully, it was because I wasn't sure if there were any short or long term detrimental psychological effects on children in such adoptions. Science, as you know, assumes the negative so until such effects are found, nothing is "proven". Therefore, I didn't think it was worth risking the children on account of that. You may ask why I even suspect that things may not be right with gay adoption? Well, to me it's obvious. There's no male or female to assume the role of the father or mother and I THINK that makes a difference.

More widely, you also seem to be uncomfortable with gays in society generally, and gave possible reasons (including the aforenoted procreation issue) for why you hold this position

You don't have it quite right here. The procreation issue pertained to a hypothetical society where homosexualiy AND bestiality were the norm. Why am I tying the latter to the former? Well, according to AllanW, there is technically no reason not to condone people having sex with animals when we condone homosexuality. It's all about personal freedoms and rights, he says.

Now if somehow you do not condone bestiality but condone homosexuality, I'd like to know on what basis that judgement was made. Some say it's about consent and "agreed upon" practices in the West but like I argued, we really don't need the consent of an animal about sex because we certainly don't look for its consent to being slaughtered. So the ball is in your court now.

So, unless you can come up with something more, I think the two options you are left with are either to concede that you are mistaken or to admit your bigotry.

Are you saying it's not okay for me to not be in support of homosexuality?

236. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187461 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 7:03 am

Comment #187454 by Peacebeuponme

The 'procreation of the species' bit was in response to Comment #187392 by AllanW. Why are you taking it out of context? This seems to be happening a lot in here. Do you all enjoy labelling people as bigots and homophobes? Is it an "Internet" thing?

237. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187457 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #187455 by Quetzalcoatl

How exactly am I trapped? The sole argument of this entire board (it would seem) is the intolerance for the feeling of disgust for homosexuality.

238. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187453 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:51 am

Comment #187451 by Colwyn Abernathy

Why are you even on these boards? You contribute nothing and that's evident from virtually all your posts.

239. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187450 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:45 am

Comment #187449 by al-rawandi

And the assumptions and juvenile comments continue...

240. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187448 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:42 am

Comment #187445 by Peacebeuponme

Are you clairvoyant? If not, stop making assumptions about me "pursuing" any issues or the supposed reasons I'm doing so. Most of my posts have been in response to questions by people who have been conditioned into thinking a certain way and implicitly assume they are right.

241. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187446 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #187442 by AllanW

We were initially talking about where to draw the line. You claimed no line was necessary (Comment #187361 by AllanW). This "logically" lead to your condonation of even bestiality (Comment #187371 by AllanW). I then said that of the two, a society that draws the line somehere is therefore probably better than one that doesn't (Comment #187381 by Appleby) and explained why (Comment #187405 by Appleby).

So what parts have I missed? I understand if it's difficult for you to keep track given all the distractions on this board; especially the juvenile comments by some people.

242. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187441 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:28 am

Comment #187438 by AllanW

I don't think they are bad people. This is just another example of you misunderstanding a lot of what I've said. Perhaps you are being influenced by all the insults being thrown my way (by certain others) rather than trying to understand what I've actually said.

243. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187440 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:25 am

Comment #187437 by sane1

Explain the difference to AllanW. He doesn't seem to think there is or did you not read Comment #187361 by AllanW and Comment #187371 by AllanW?

244. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187436 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #187434 by Peacebeuponme

In the long term it is.

245. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187431 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:14 am

Comment #187429 by AllanW

You *do* realize you are calling me prejudiced (several times now already) based on my personal feelings about homosexuality, don't you? Are you sure you want to continue?

246. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187430 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:12 am

Comment #187428 by sane1

Not based on Comment #187391 by The Reverend Dark. Refer also:

Comment #187396 by Appleby

Comment #187400 by The Reverend Dark

Comment #187401 by Appleby

247. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187426 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:08 am

Comment #187425 by Peacebeuponm

This is low for you. A joke, perhaps?

248. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187424 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:04 am

Comment #187419 by phil rimmer

Read the posts in context before you comment. Just a tip to the ignorant.

249. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187422 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:03 am

Comment #187416 by sane1

I was responding to Comment #187371 by AllanW. Read it.

250. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187420 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 6:01 am

Comment #187415 by AllanW

First of all, why do you assume women in such a society will be waiting around just to be artificially inseminated by the men on days they choose not to fuck their cats or dogs? Or are you suggesting this insemination be imposed on them?

You my friend, are the one who has obviously not thought hard about these issues. This is what happens when you don't know where to draw the line. And this is why a society where some lines are drawn is better than none (as you propose, refer Comment #187361 by AllanW).