Quote:
Originally Posted by Salu
Graham
I think we are at a stalemate, so like several people on this forum who debate with you, we will have to agree to disagree. :shrug:
|
That's your opinion and your choice.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroNutter
Im no doctor but as it has been said in this thread that they are human too which is of course undeniable, they must be susceptible to the same fundamental flaws as hetros
|
Of course, I've never said otherwise. But that's *still* not an argument against gay adoption.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
(PS Isn't the reasoning behind IVF and fertility treatment that people *do* have the "right" to have children???)
|
IVF and other methods is not a 100% guarantee so no it still remians a privelage.
|
Sorry, I don't follow that. It's not whether it *guarantees* children that is relevant, but the point that, AFAIK, anyone (or almost anyone) can get it.
Quote:
Adoption is a guarantee that a child will be there, its the adopters that come with no guarantee
|
But if you apply to be an adoptive parent, there's no guarantee(!) that you're going to be accepted and get a child.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroNutter
And as an extra because you insist on delving into my past for more I went into my history and gave you a clear and consise answer, which I will now reitterate yet a 3rd time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroNutter
With this new question are you questioning my loyalty to the woman of my dreams before I met her ?
|
If you do not have the wisdom to see that answer the problem is yours not mine.
|
And for the third time you dodge the issue. What you have said is *no* answer to my question and it's clear that you have no intention ever to answer it but will simply continue to evade and obfuscate.
Not impressive.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
Sorry, but you miss the point that *nobody* is saying that *anyone* has the right to inflict harm on another person.
|
Actually I thought that the Doctor's point was that 'rape is wrong' is, when you get down to it, just an opinion, and, by extension, morals are just 'opinion', and therefore relative, and not absolute. I didn't detect any reference to your oft-quoted (and very laudible) saying, 'your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.'
|
Well, since you bring it up, that "right" is, when it comes down to it, just another opinion, as is, indeed, that "no one has the right to inflict harm on another".
This doesn't mean, however, that I will not stand up and defend those opinions(!) against those who wish to infringe them.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
I certainly don't accept that there is *any* "truth" in morals! Everyone can agree that Pi is equal to three, but that still doesn't make it true.
|
Well that much is obvious! But then everyone could agree that there is no God and morality is entirely a matter of personal opinion, yet without it being true. We're going to have to agree to differ on this point.
|
Ok, but one final comment: I can prove that Pi equals 3.14159265... and always will (unless you get serious into advanced hyper-mathematics!)
That is a universal *truth*, not an "opinion".
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
And others are entitled to stand up and object. Ask Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
|
Who was a committed Christian and, despite his fearsome reputation as a civil rights campaigner, apparently never made any public statement in favour of or against homosexual people.
|
I never said he did.
That comment was in the context of your statement "The people, embodied in the State, decide what is right and are then entitled to require it of everyone, whether they agree with it personally or not."
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
The thing here is that if he *only* required that of Christians then I'd have no problems. [...]
Except that, once again, Christians are trying to tell the rest of us what we can or cannot do, even though *we* don't follow their beliefs.
And that, to me, is definitely *WRONG*.
|
I've seen the letter posted on Snopes before. It is very funny but it completely fails to grasp the most basic principles of Biblical interpretation, which are due respect for context and identification of literary genre.
|
In which case there are quite a few "Christians" who have also failed to grasp that "most basic principle too", see Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell et al...!
Quote:
As for Christians campaigning for society to pick up on their moral outlook, well Christianity is an evangelistic religion. It is our duty to share with the world how we believe God wants the world to be.
|
And it is my right to tell you that I'm not interested.
Unfortunately some Christians won't take *no* for an answer.
Quote:
And yes, I would like you to live your life in a certain way even though you don't want to, because I believe that in the long term, it's for your eternal good. Of course, you can be assured that I will never force you to live the way I want you to except using the democratic means open to you, me and everyone else.
|
Fine, thank you. But I don't share your beliefs and I'd prefer not to have them *forced* on me, be they by evangelism or democratic means.
I will remind you that the "democratic means" were what caused homosexuality to be a crime for so many years in this country with the attendant misery and suffering that gays experienced because of it.
And which religious group was responsible for that...? (That's rhetorical, btw!)
Quote:
At the end of the day this is a legal issue as much as it's a moral one and laws only change when society wants them to.
|
Which is often when a repressed minority has the courage to stand up and say "we're as mad as hell and we're not going to take this any more!" (or words to that effect and is willing to *fight* to get the rights that are being denied to them.
Quote:
I know you are a committed liberal but as a Christian I believe that absolute freedom is a myth and true freedom only exists within the boundaries set by God. We are poles apart on this issue.
|
Yes, I believe that entirely!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
All snipped
|
Apart from the "violence" part (I'd walk away from it. If I couldn't walk away, I'd run away. If I couldn't do that, I'd try to get someone else to intervene) I can pretty much agree with all the comments you made.
Good post.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthorn
how do these things work in reality ? does someone have a casting vote or do they debate/argue for weeks.
|
I don't know, but IMO the only sensible way would be for 100% agreement.
If anyone had doubts as to the suitability of the adopters (and presuming those doubts were based on reason, not prejudice) I would say the adoption shouldn't be allowed.
