Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If this is the best evidence that you can come up with then I suggest you try again. Just because some singer makes a statement about his intentions. I could claim in News 24 that I intend to walk across the ceiling un-aided, doesn`t mean that it is going to happen.
__________________

Of course its irrelevant to you as it doesnt give any credibilty to your opinion, however while Moby may not even be a gay himself, he is a high profile avid supporter of gay activism and gay rights, and you chose to disregard it, which is a form of acceptance of abuse, as that is what that would mount to if it were to happen.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Selectively balance? I don`t think so. There were four possible combinations, you only listed three. By stating the fourth I am balancing things, but hardly selectively.

And you cannot seem to accept that all four were listed in my post, I seperated the first as it had all ready recieved some debate, and again I put it that it was a deliberatly chosen single lateral context in the first instance becasue it suited their point of veiw. The other 3 were added to balance that argument.
You continuation of insisting you did the balancing is as false as the accusation you make of me below, which is paramount to derogatory insults, but not to my intelligence, as it clearly shows you for what you are

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Ok, if you are going to persist on this one I`ll accept that you think your debating technique is valid. That forces to me to conclude that you do think it a good think to put children in the way of physical harm.

[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.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Salu

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. <snip>

Pardon me, but how the hell do you compare rape to a consenting adult relationship? That's twisted....

[Salu]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Pardon me, but how the hell do you compare rape to a consenting adult relationship? That's twisted....

I wasn't comparing it to a consenting adult relationship but as an illustration of something that you should stand up for and help avoid.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Of course its irrelevant to you as it doesnt give any credibilty to your opinion, however while Moby may not even be a gay himself, he is a high profile avid supporter of gay activism and gay rights, and you chose to disregard it, which is a form of acceptance of abuse, as that is what that would mount to if it were to happen.

It is *entirely* irrelevant as just because he says he wants to do something doesn`t mean he can. It is irrelevant to *both* our arguments as it is merely drivel from some puffed up celebrity. When you have an article that warrants serious attention, come back. Until then, don`t waste my time with this trivia.

And you cannot seem to accept that all four were listed in my post, I seperated the first as it had all ready recieved some debate, and again I put it that it was a deliberatly chosen single lateral context in the first instance becasue it suited their point of veiw. The other 3 were added to balance that argument.

No, you did not. You made a passing reference to their being differences of opinion, outside of the main thrust of the argument in your post, therefore clearly marking it as something separate.

You continuation of insisting you did the balancing is as false as the accusation you make of me below, which is paramount to derogatory insults, but not to my intelligence, as it clearly shows you for what you are

Ok, let's have a laugh and assume you are right. Surely that means that you are a hypocrite for failing to address my question. Again, I ask you, do you advocate child endangerment as a valid option in the face of your prejudices?
__________________

Originally Posted by Salu

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....

Morals are *nothing* but opinions. There is no absolute right and wrong in the universe, just what is perceived as acceptable at any given point in time. Given that acceptability itself is not based on any objective measures to a very large degree.

With regard to your question, if I saw someone being raped then I would intervene, but it is still only an opinion that a woman shouldn`t be treated in this fashion, not an objective, universal truth.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Morals are *nothing* but opinions. There is no absolute right and wrong in the universe, just what is perceived as acceptable at any given point in time. Given that acceptability itself is not based on any objective measures to a very large degree.

With regard to your question, if I saw someone being raped then I would intervene, but it is still only an opinion that a woman shouldn`t be treated in this fashion, not an objective, universal truth.

I completely respect you for saying so, but I do think this exposes the real danger of moral relativism. It's not a very great leap from here to start questioning what right the rest of society has to impose its 'opinion' that rape is wrong on a person who fancies going out and committing a rape. You have at the very least to accept that morals if not universal are at least 'collective truth'. 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.

The Christian position, just to bring this right back to the original question, is of course that there is universal truth, but it is universal by virtue of the fact that God has a set of opinions which, being God, he is entitled to require of the rest of us. It's worth pointing out here that God does not make an example of homosexual activity as 'wrong' except as part of a whole list of other things that are also 'wrong' but which we spend far less of our time getting hot under the collar about - drunkenness, rage and casual sex for example.

There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about whether or not a gay couple can create the right environment in which to bring up a child. It's a good question but Christians should not be afraid to speak out on this and say that it is nevertheless a secondary issue. God created a certain order and expects those he created to live according to that order. Living outside of that, even if you are very good at it, is 'wrong' according to God's law.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about whether or not a gay couple can create the right environment in which to bring up a child. It's a good question but Christians should not be afraid to speak out on this and say that it is nevertheless a secondary issue. God created a certain order and expects those he created to live according to that order. Living outside of that, even if you are very good at it, is 'wrong' according to God's law.

Which then begs the question: Would it be 'wrong' according to God's law if two Gay people who don't practice their homosexuality raise a child together? In other words: Is it God's law that a child be raised by two people of differing gender?

Originally Posted by danielf

Which then begs the question: Would it be 'wrong' according to God's law if two Gay people who don't practice their homosexuality raise a child together? In other words: Is it God's law that a child be raised by two people of differing gender?

That's a darned fine question ...

In truth, I haven't really thought about it, as the question of homosexual orientation and homosexual practice tend not to be seen as different issues by society at large. The Bible is very clear on the issue that it is the practice that is forbidden. Being tempted is not a sin, but acting on temptation is.

Thinking this through a bit, there are all kinds of scenarios I can think of where a child might be brought up in a house with just men (or just women, which is possibly more likely), whether gay or not. I can't see how that could be 'wrong' in and of itself. However the Bible is clear on the point that the family unit is one man and one woman, joined together for the purpose of (amongst other things), the procreation of children. I myself have no idea whether a homosexual, but celibate, couple would want to bring up a child to believe that.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

That's a darned fine question ...

In truth, I haven't really thought about it, as the question of homosexual orientation and homosexual practice tend not to be seen as different issues by society at large. The Bible is very clear on the issue that it is the practice that is forbidden. Being tempted is not a sin, but acting on temptation is.

Thinking this through a bit, there are all kinds of scenarios I can think of where a child might be brought up in a house with just men (or just women, which is possibly more likely), whether gay or not. I can't see how that could be 'wrong' in and of itself. However the Bible is clear on the point that the family unit is one man and one woman, joined together for the purpose of (amongst other things), the procreation of children. I myself have no idea whether a homosexual, but celibate, couple would want to bring up a child to believe that.

I can see this getting sticky

Ultimately, you are saying that a child should be brought up according to God's law (forgive me if I'm wrong). This would of course, disqualify several people from adopting children (including myself, as I'm an Atheist, but also people adhering to other religions). Now I'm sure things are not so black and white, as no doubt there will be shades of breaking the law. So here's me, an Atheist (I denounce God) in a committed heterosexual relationship. I'm sure however there will be Christian homosexual couples as well. They will probably be well aware of breaking the law, but may be comitted to raising a child in a religious manner. Which is the worse of the two evils. I would say I am, as I would bring up a child telling him/her there is no God.

Originally Posted by Chris T

I completely respect you for saying so, but I do think this exposes the real danger of moral relativism. It's not a very great leap from here to start questioning what right the rest of society has to impose its 'opinion' that rape is wrong on a person who fancies going out and committing a rape. You have at the very least to accept that morals if not universal are at least 'collective truth'. 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.

Can`t argue against you there, although I would still claim that a "collective truth" is still just an opinion, but, to get to your next point...

Originally Posted by Chris T

The Christian position, just to bring this right back to the original question, is of course that there is universal truth, <snip>

This, of course, is something that we will never agree on. As an aetheist there simply isn`t an external "force" (for want of a better word) that defines right and wrong, for me at least. My model of the universe does not allow for the concept of absolute truths.

A serious question, but one of those ones that has the potential to sound flippant. As a Christian, you believe that God is the ultimate arbiter or right and wrong. I`ll need to question some of my presumptions about Christianity which may render the rest of this somewhat moot. It has always been my assumption that God is the ultimate authority in the universe for a Christian. It has always been my assumption that Christians see God as a sentient being rather than some nebulous "force". If God is the ultimate authority, there can be no higher being to which he can turn, so while God may define universal truths for humans, who defines universal truths for God? Or is this simply one of those questions that doesn`t get looked at due to the risk of making anyone's brain fall out?

Originally Posted by danielf

I can see this getting sticky

Ultimately, you are saying that a child should be brought up according to God's law (forgive me if I'm wrong). This would of course, disqualify several people from adopting children (including myself, as I'm an Atheist, but also people adhering to other religions). Now I'm sure things are not so black and white, as no doubt there will be shades of breaking the law. So here's me, an Atheist (I denounce God) in a committed heterosexual relationship. I'm sure however there will be Christian homosexual couples as well. They will probably be well aware of breaking the law, but may be comitted to raising a child in a religious manner. Which is the worse of the two evils. I would say I am, as I would bring up a child telling him/her there is no God.

I had a good think about this while I ate my super noodles.

Yes, I am saying that God requires all parents to bring up their children to be good citizens and more specifically to 'fear God'. But, if you don't mind me quoting the Bible (I know you don't hold it in high regard but it's where I'm coming from), 'Man is destined to live once, and after that comes judgement'. You aren't barred from having children by not being a Christian ('be fruitful and multiply' is a divine command to the whole race), but after you die you will be held to account for how you bring up your children. You will also be called to account for how you lived other aspects of your life.

You raise an interesting point about who would be the more fitting parents when it comes to adoption. Of course, Social Services already consider this issue, although often, it seems, from the opposite point of view. I know Christians who have adopted and believe me, the social workers take a very close interest in their Church life to ensure the religion the child will be exposed to is acceptable.

Nevertheless, I do think you have set up a bit of a false dilemma. For a start there is no such thing as the lesser of two evils in terms of final judgement. The 'pass mark' for entry to Heaven is a totally unattainable 100%, which is what the crucifixion is for. And in terms of a supposedly Christian gay couple trying to bring up their child to fear God, well this whole issue is nicely illustrated by Gene Robinson, the gay Anglican bishop in America. It's the fact that he is in an active homosexual relationship that has caused the concern. Christianity is supposed to be a process of continutal growth in Christ-likeness in the believer. You simply can't reserve certain aspects of your life outside that process.

As a Christian, I want to see the society I live in conform to the ideal that God has given, in social as well as spiritual terms. That means I resist changes in the spiritual life of our nation that take us further from God, and I resist social changes that take us further from God's ideal. Allowing gay marriage and adoption is just such a social change. Continuing to allow atheist, heterosexual couples to adopt is not a social change and while there are Christians still around to proclaim God's will, your soul isn't a lost cause either.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

It is *entirely* irrelevant as just because he says he wants to do something doesn`t mean he can. It is irrelevant to *both* our arguments as it is merely drivel from some puffed up celebrity. When you have an article that warrants serious attention, come back. Until then, don`t waste my time with this trivia.

Its only trivia in your opinion because it highlights credibilty that the possiblity of a deliberate attempt to impose sexuall orientation in the rearing of a child does indeed exist, but that does not fit with your argument so you would rather disregard it as hogwash rather than condem that someone would consider performing such a possible action.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

No, you did not. You made a passing reference to their being differences of opinion, outside of the main thrust of the argument in your post, therefore clearly marking it as something separate.

It was seperated as it had allready recieved some debate, that doesnt mean if anything new that hadnt allready been said previously, then it is obviously welcome to further that element in this debate.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Ok, let's have a laugh and assume you are right. Surely that means that you are a hypocrite for failing to address my question. Again, I ask you, do you advocate child endangerment as a valid option in the face of your prejudices?

Again ? dont see how you can ask again when you elected to just conclude before. Ill ignore your ignorant attempt at sarcasm there.
No abuse is good, wether that be physical, sexuall or an atempt of imposition of allsorts of orientations including sexual. The point I made before was I would rather risk my kids to some violence than the risk of imposed sexual deviation or worse sexuall abuse itself, That doesnt mean I dont have a non violent and unbiased sexuall first choice if something untoward was to happen to both me and my wife.

Now unless you have something new to add i'll head on to the others where you selectivly chose to try to debacle the post by incorrectly saying it wasnt balanced, when I was inviting further discussion into other possible scenarios, aswell as anything new on the first mentioned, I have to wonder why, perhaps theres more to the other scenarios than some would like to see.

Is it possible that not all gay unions are in fact happy, could it be that as many gay unions wether they be male or female suffer as much domestic violence pro rata as the hetro counterparts. Perhaps substance abuse is also very high in gays, maybe its higher than in hetro, and could it be that gays are possibly more susceptible to mental health issues including actual suicides and suicidal tendencies.
Is it also possible that gays are less likely to seek counselling for their problems ?
And if that is the case will adding children make the situation worse.
There are times in most hetro households where children can prove to be the most trying of people. If the above was any way near the truth would putting children into the gay couple sector put more gays at an even higher risk from an absolute certain increased strain in their lifestyles.

Theres one difference between this adoption activism and regualr gay rights of age of consent marraige etc.

Children are not a right they are a privelage.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Why is it a cop out ?

Because you gave a glib response that had nothing to do with what I was asking.

it is based on the same for the alternatives in the here and now not almost 20 years ago. But for you I will give you an answer.

With this new question are you questioning my loyalty to the woman of my dreams before I met her ?

I am asking exactly what I asked.

If a woman came up to you and made persistant advances and would not take "no" for an answer (or even "f-off") would you use physical violence against her (as you have already said you would against a gay man who did the same) in order to "teach her a good hard lesson"?
__________________

Originally Posted by Salu

I was not arguing that history is a reason for banning of gay marriage. I was saying that it has become acceptable practice over many years for marriage to be man and woman. Acceptable majorative practice has become a recognise benchmark over centuries. Murder for example.

Excuse me??? What the *hell* does this have to do with the subject under discussion? Is anyone here advocating that murder *should* be acceptable?

Gay marriage may be *in* today but out in 20 years. There have always been fads. What makes you think it is here to stay? [rhetorical - not addressed to you] Has it not been considered before? Have we suddenly seen the light in today's society? Interesting questions.....

In our society IMO we have only just developed sufficiently to be able to consider such a thing in a rational and sensible manner and not respond with automatic prejudiced revulsion that this is simply "unnatural" or "deviant" etc.

However it's interesting to note that in other cultures the concept *has* been acceptable see http://www.bluecorncomics.com/gaymarry.htm for some more information eg:

"Segal pointed to "sanctified same-sex unions in the fourth century in Christianity" and to the Greeks and Romans applying the concept of marriage to same-sex couples, not to mention the Native American berdache tradition in which males married males."

....like abusing young boys.....?

Again you use a pejorative word in place of an argument.

In Greek society it was not considered abuse at all, but the purest form of love (since it was not done for reproduction) and it was entirely acceptable for a young boy to be mentored by an older man.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Graham

Because you gave a glib response that had nothing to do with what I was asking.



I am asking exactly what I asked.

If a woman came up to you and made persistant advances and would not take "no" for an answer (or even "f-off") would you use physical violence against her (as you have already said you would against a gay man who did the same) in order to "teach her a good hard lesson"?

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

Originally Posted by by me

With this new question are you questioning my loyalty to the woman of my dreams before I met her ?

For you I have reitterated. But then women are a lot easier to fend of even if your worse for the wear.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Its only trivia in your opinion because it highlights credibilty that the possiblity of a deliberate attempt to impose sexuall orientation in the rearing of a child does indeed exist, but that does not fit with your argument so you would rather disregard it as hogwash rather than condem that someone would consider performing such a possible action.

It does nothing of the sort, it is merely the ramblings of a pop star in an interview. I`m sorry, but if that is you idea of credible evidence then I do not feel it worth debating with you any further. When you have something meaningful to present then by all means do present it. Until then, if this is the best "evidence" that you can come up with then I honestly feel that any rebuttal is wasted.