Graham

You miss the point that whilst those are, by the dictionary, strictly correct, it is *not* simply a matter of it being "different", but other people considering it to be *wrong*.

Most people don't support football team <foo>, so by definition that is "unnatural" and "not normal". Most people these days don't go to church or are religious, yet that's not considered "deviant".

There is more to it than that and those words have implicit sub-texts of it being "wrong" and "unacceptable", not just "different".

Pardon me if I say that that is a naiive and simplistic attitude.

There is a regrettable mind set amongst many people that they want to stop *others* from doing something which *they* know is wrong, even when it has no direct effect on them.

I don't watch Soap Operas, should I campaign to outlaw them because *I* don't want to see them? Of course not.

Yes, some are militant. Just like the difference between eg Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. Would you say, however, that either of them were wrong for wanting to be considered equal?

Yet again with this "natural/ normal" nonsense.

To quote Terry Pratchett: Someone who goes to a SF convention dressed in a Star Trek Uniform with pointy ears is considered to be a "wierdo" or even "deviant", yet someone who wakes up under a Man Utd Duvet to a MU alarm clock, puts on their MU replica shirt and drinks their coffee out of a MU mug is merely a "normal fan".

What is the difference? There is none, except in people's prejudices about what is "acceptable" or "normal".

Obviously *you* aren't black!

I'm white. I've walked down a street in London with a black girlfriend and we've got dirty looks from both black *and* white passers by!!!

Imagine you're a child of mixed race parents, do you really think other children are *not* going to comment (read "try to bully you") about that?

* * * * *

Who are the Perpetrators?

Perpetrators are most often someone the child knows and trusts. As far as we know, perpetrators are most often male relatives, including fathers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles and cousins; friends of the family; or neighbors. Perpetrators can also be female, including mothers, sisters, aunts, babysitters, and grandmothers.

Usually the perpetrator has easy access to the child because she/he has sole responsibility for the child, or takes care of or visits the child, and is trusted by the childââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s parents.

http://www.childabuse.com/wisdom/072501.htm

* * * * *

Who is most likely to commit child abuse?

Family members are responsible for the majority of assaults against very young children. "Family members" can mean immediate and extended family members related by blood, marriage, common-law or adoption as well as people who are considered to be the child's legal guardian.

http://www.law-faqs.org/nat/chi-06.htm

* * * * *

Who are the perpetrators?

Perpetrators of child abuse or neglect are often parents. In 2001, 80.9% of perpetrators were parents, and 15.9% were non-parents (e.g., other caregivers, babysitters, extended family members). Perpertrators in remaining cases (3.2%) were missing or unknown. Females were more often perpetrators than males (59.3% females, 40.7% males).

http://www.americanhumane.org/site/P...childabusedata

* * * * *

The words "coloured", "negro" and "nigger" are all definitions of black people.

Try using them in various locations and see what sort of reaction you get.

You go on to quote examples where people might go "err" or wince, but consider for a moment how much of that is simply based on ignorance or society's prejudices that the person has grown up with.

Again I mention that some people may have the same reaction to a mixed race kiss (remember the controversy over Plato's Stepchildren from the original Trek series where Kirk is forced to kiss Uhura? Some states in the USA banned that episode from being shown because it was an "unnatural act"!)

"I support them as people but not their actions." You can't support someone as a person at the same time as denying them the right to behave as they wish. If you do that, you are treating them as "less equal" and thus not a "proper person" at all.

*NOBODY* is talking about putting anyone's rights above anyone else's!

Of course the rights of the child should be paramount, it would be ludicrous (and dangerous) to suggest otherwise. But I'm not saying "oh, we must let gay couples adopt *just because* they're gay"!

As with *any* adoption, *all* factors must be taken into consideration, however simply *because* a couple is gay is *not* a reason to deny them the right to adopt.

This is rubbish and the logical fallacy known as "appeal to tradition" ie "this is the way it's always been done, so we shouldn't change it".

Once more I re-iterate the point that, in the past, were a black man try to marry a white woman, it would most probably not have happened, yet, now we're a little more enlightened, any consenting man can marry any consenting woman and it's nobody else's business.

There is *NO* reason to deny the gays the right to marry apart from sheer and utter *prejudice*. You don't like it, so you don't want them to be able to do it. You want to deny them rights that are open to others. You want to force them to be *different*.

I suggest you look at the policy of "separate but equal" that the US tried to bring in in the 1950s when they had segregation between Blacks and Whites.

http://www.answers.com/topic/separate-but-equal

It rapidly becomes evident that there is *no* actual "equality" in those policies, but it let the bigots claim that they were "doing something" when their actual agenda was to ensure that the blacks stayed "in their place" (ie subservient to whites).

There is *no* reason to deny gays the right to marriage, but there are plenty of people who will try to justify this form of discrimination because it fits in with their prejudices.
__________________

I wish them all the best!
__________________

Excellent find! Thank you very much for posting that
__________________

If you nominate it, I'll vote for it!
__________________

"We aren't *all* drug dealers and degenerates"??

Surely that implies that *some* of you are either or both...?!