[Salu]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

There are some things that you should do/say something about. They are morals. Morals should not just be demoted to opinions. What about seeing someone being beaten up on the street? Would you intervene when you saw someone being raped? etc etc. You obviously feel passionate enough to argue against how I feel because you *feel* that I am *wrong*. Mind you I think you would argue the toss over anything as you enjoy a good rant....

You just can't have a world where everyone can do anything they want providing it doesn't affect others. It will affect others eventually.

Originally Posted by Graham

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".

This is just about exercising choice. But as Russ has mentioned there are some things that give you an inner discomfort, that is hard to explain. I don't mind in the slightest if you wish to paint your ears red and walk down the street with a planpot on your head. But if you wanted to do this naked I might have something to say. Why? Because it is regarded as socially unacceptable and morally wrong.

Originally Posted by Graham

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?

It doesnt make a difference to me.....I am not racist.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

* * * * *

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

No thanks.

Originally Posted by Graham

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"!)

You are obviously trying to portray this reaction as outdated or old fashioned. So presumably you would feel that people who have this reaction are not enlightened? Who are still living in the dark of yesteryears' attitudes? I would say that they are feeling something inside that they feel to be inherently wrong. Like Russ has alluded to. We can ignore those feelings and let them practice what they wish providing it doesn't affect *us* but the question is should we? Shouldn't we stand up for how we feel?

Originally Posted by Graham

"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.

Sure you can. You presumably don't have children then? My children do wrong all the time. I don't like what they do sometimes but I will always support them..

Originally Posted by Graham

*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.

Glad to hear it. Maybe not reason to deny them but certainly a reason to prevent them until we know more about the implecations....

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Try and hold back the insults Graham. Calling my opinions rubbish is not helpful to friendly debate.......It could also be viewed as *rubbish* to change something that has been tried and tested over time. The breakdown of the family unit has been attributed to the increase in youth crime over the past 30 years or so. The family is important. We could speculate that it is to do with *love* and that two men could equally *love* a child and provide a *loving* environment for them but we do not know...

Originally Posted by Graham

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*.

How do you know there is *NO* reason other than their rights? If you place the child's rights equally if not greater than theirs how can you be sure?

Originally Posted by Graham

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).

OT a bit but thank you. However this shows more about attitude than actions.