Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Russ D
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Not semantics, genetic engineering.
But however you create the child, you have not proven by any means that a man and a woman are required to bring up a child.
|
So we're back to the days where Graham's opinion is the only opinion then. |
No, we're in the same days where if you're going to make claims about how it's *only* "natural" to bring up a child with a man and a woman as parents, you're going to have to provide some evidence to back that claim up, otherwise it's *you* who is implying that only *your* opinion matters.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Again with this word "natural".
Unfortunately what "natural" tends to mean in this sort of case is "what I am familiar with" or "what I approve of".
|
As above.
|
As above.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I suggest you look at the prevalence of homosexual (older male, younger male) relationship in societies such as the Ancient Greeks and Spartans.
For them such behaviour was considered entirely "natural". Just because it's not something that happens today (or that you don't like it) doesn't make it less valid
|
.
As above. *They* may have considered it natural, but I don't. I'm entitled to my options Graham just as you are. And just as I don't agree with you does not make me wrong.
|
And again, as above. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you need to prove your claims.
(And may I remind you of the logical fallacy of "Burden of Proof" before you demand that I prove my side instead)
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
So, once again, because Russ D doesn't like it, it's "unnatural".
|
Now you're getting the hang of it! Yes, if it's my opinion!!
|
Fine, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Just don't expect me or anyone else to accept it just because you say so, *BACK IT UP* with something.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Of course, but your objections seem to be that because *you* would have trouble *they* shouldn't be allowed to do this.
|
(sigh) Yes Graham, because...and get this....."it's my opinion".
|
Russ, if you want to have a reasonable debate let's have a *DEBATE*!!!
This involves... get this...
someone backing up an opinion with facts...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
If a couple, be they straight, gay, mixed race or whatever are capable of bringing up a child in a loving and caring relationship, why should they *not* be allowed to adopt just because someone thinks it's "unnatural" according to their personal beliefs?
|
Graham....I'd swear you're doing this just to wind me up but something tells me you're honestly not.....you show me where I've said they should not be allowed to adopt, please. Oh that's right, you can't - because I didn't say it. I don't agree with it but I'm not trying to change the law or prevent anyone from doing it.[/quote]
Hmm, you didn't? Let me quote your exact words from message #136:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Russ D
a child's upbringing should be kept as close to natural as possible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
So your only objection appears to be that it's those who can't have children because they're a male/ male or female/ female couple shouldn't be allowed to adopt.
|
As above |
Now, please, explain to me how I am *NOT* supposed to read that as you saying that they should not be allowed to adopt???
And, yes, I *KNOW* this is your *opinion* but that *opinion* will affect, for instance, how you express your vote which, in a small way, may affect how a law is drafted and implemented.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Yet you object to gay adoption because you want children to be brought up in a "natural"(!) environment.
I sense a slight contradiction here...!
|
Well yes Graham, you would wouldn't you. Read my posts again, I've never said they should be brought up in a "natural"(!) environment - my views, if you'd bothered to enquire, would be their upbringing should be as "natural as possible". A difference.
|
A quibble.
Again I quote your words "a child's upbringing should be kept as close to natural as possible."
Note where you say "as close... as possible". But your definition of "natural" still seems to be "what I agree with", and appears to deny that *anyone else's* opinion(!) of what is "natural" is acceptable.