Graham

But that's exactly what morals *are*!!

Morals are nothing more than chunks of "tribal ethos" which have been around for so long that some people blindly accept them as "absolute truth" and cannot or will not look beyond them.

How long ago was it that being gay was "immoral"? What about sex outside marriage? Or how about single parenthood? All of these have been decried as "immoral" in the past but opinions(!) have changed now.

Yes, I would try to intervene or do something in those cases, but that's not down to "morals".

Didn't someone just complain that *I* was being "insulting"...?

Would you mind explaining the logic behind that conclusion? How can something that *doesn't* affect others end up "eventually" affecting others? :

But that's all that gays (in this case) want to do. They want to have the right to exercise *choice* over how they live their lives like everyone else!

What is your problem with that? Nobody's asking you to do it.

But "Socially unacceptable" and "morally wrong" are only *OPINIONS*!

It was considered "socially unacceptable" (and very probably "morally wrong") for Amelia Bloomer to wear trousers instead of a skirt and doing so got her arrested. Now, however, women can wear trousers without causing the slightest stir on the streets.

Again don't assume that because something is "unacceptable" or "wrong" at one particular moment in time, this is somehow *always* going to be the case.

That's not the point I'm making. It doesn't matter whether *you* are racist or not, *others* may be and if they are brought up with the attitude that you having mixed race parents is "morally wrong" or "socially unacceptable", *YOU* are going to suffer because of that.

So what do we do? Stop people of mixed races from marrying or teach children that racist (or homophobic) attitudes are wrong?

You're welcome.


Why not? Answer: because no matter what the dictionary says, some words *do* have negative connotations and it wouldn't be a good idea to use a word like "nigger" in the wrong context.

But *why* do people feel this to be "inherently wrong"? Do you think people are *born* with such attitudes? Is it built into us genetically? Is there an "anti-gay" gene somewhere in our makeup?

Personally I don't think so. I think it's that there's a lot of conscious or unconscious prejudice still in our society and children absorb those attitudes as they grow up without even knowing it such that when they reach adulthood they can pass the same attitudes on to their children without even realising it.

As I said, it depends on *why* you feel that way.

People used to feel that blacks were inferior to whites. A lot of people stood up for the right for whites to own slaves because it was "natural" to do so.

Then others stood up and said "hang on, we're all humans, they're no different from us apart from the skin colour, why shouldn't they have the same rights as us?"

So yes, you can stand up for what you feel, but please don't object when people like me stand up for what *we* feel and say that you're wrong.

We can then debate the subject and come to a conclusion and hopefully that debate will be conducted in a reasonable and rational way and not simply based on "arguments" such as "well I don't like it and they've not been able to do it before, so they shouldn't be allowed to do it now".

If *your* child kicks a ball through *my* window and then claims it wasn't them who did it, you will support them and tell me "tough luck, pal"?

But that argument can be strung out ad infinitum! If you *don't* ever allow them to adopt you're *never* going to know what the implications are.

The point is that unless there are obvious or overwhelming grounds *not* to allow them to adopt then they should be allowed to.

That is not an insult, that is an *opinion* and one that I backed up with reasoning explaining *why* I thought it was "rubbish".

It could. It could also be viewed as parocial, narrow minded, bigoted, prejudiced...

And is that a conclusive reason? Or is it that just another fallacy "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore *because* of it)?

I have little doubt that the increase of youth crime has also been attributed to the banning of corporal punishment in schools, the removal of National Service, children watching too much television and a whole bunch of other factors too. The first two were "tried and tested over time", yet now we don't have them any more. Was getting rid of them "rubbish"?

Fear, uncertainty, doubt. No proof, no logical reasons, no evidence.

Not a good argument.

More FUD. As that pdf Marina posted pointed out, there is very little evidence to show that children growing up with gay parents are negatively affected and an awful lot showing that they *aren't* negatively affected.

This is not completely conclusive of course, but it's certainly more than circumstantial or anecdotal.

Yes, it's a bit OT, but it's relevant and attitudes *are* definitely important in this discussion.
__________________

Sorry, but you miss the point that *nobody* is saying that *anyone* has the right to inflict harm on another person.

You're probably already thinking of a reply that starts "but doesn't it harm the potential rapist by infringing on their freedoms" or some such, however the question then is which does the *most* harm and I doubt you'd find many people who would agree that the rapist would be more harmed than the victim.

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.

And others are entitled to stand up and object. Ask Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

The thing here is that if he *only* required that of Christians then I'd have no problems.

Unfortunately there are Christians out there who want *me* to behave as *they* think is correct, whether *I* want to or not.

They have the right to follow their religion, I don't tell them not to do so because I think it's nonsense and superstition. Why should they then try to inflict *their* opinions on me?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

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*.
__________________

Yes, all of these are possible.

However unless you actually have proof of any of these, you still don't have an argument against gay adoption.

In which case it's a priviledge that's been abused by a huge number of heterosexuals!!!

(PS Isn't the reasoning behind IVF and fertility treatment that people *do* have the "right" to have children???)
__________________

Of which I answered but you do not have the experience or the wisdom to see that answer.[/quote]

No, you have not answered it before, you copped out. Now you have not answered it again, you have evaded.

Are you going to actually give a simple answer to a simple question?

Again you dodge the issue. We are talking about a woman who will *not* take "no" for an answer. One who you *cannot* simply "fend off".

Will you use physical violence against her to get her to go away? Yes or no?