Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!

[Angua]

How about this one http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/o...0/NEWS3ZM.html

Originally Posted by Angua

How about this one http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/o...0/NEWS3ZM.html

Good find.

However the two comments that got my mind fizzing were.

I think my uncle would have been fascinated by the experimental side of the two women having a child, but as for two women bringing up a child as a couple, that would have really gone against the grain. He wouldn't have liked their sexual orientation.

followed by.

"I remember him as being a very chauvinistic man and from what I was told by my mother, his sister, he was interested in IVF because he objected to women having all the power to reproduce.

"I think my uncle's next step would have actually been to try and make it possible for men to get pregnant."

wonder how much take up he would have got?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Angua

How about this one http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/o...0/NEWS3ZM.html

Right, that was mrs Martin's 15 minutes of fame. NEXT!

Originally Posted by Salu

Graham

I think we are at a stalemate, so like several people on this forum who debate with you, we will have to agree to disagree.

That's your opinion and your choice.
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Im no doctor but as it has been said in this thread that they are human too which is of course undeniable, they must be susceptible to the same fundamental flaws as hetros

Of course, I've never said otherwise. But that's *still* not an argument against gay adoption.

IVF and other methods is not a 100% guarantee so no it still remians a privelage.

Sorry, I don't follow that. It's not whether it *guarantees* children that is relevant, but the point that, AFAIK, anyone (or almost anyone) can get it.

Adoption is a guarantee that a child will be there, its the adopters that come with no guarantee

But if you apply to be an adoptive parent, there's no guarantee(!) that you're going to be accepted and get a child.
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

And as an extra because you insist on delving into my past for more I went into my history and gave you a clear and consise answer, which I will now reitterate yet a 3rd time:

If you do not have the wisdom to see that answer the problem is yours not mine.

And for the third time you dodge the issue. What you have said is *no* answer to my question and it's clear that you have no intention ever to answer it but will simply continue to evade and obfuscate.

Not impressive.
__________________

Originally Posted by Chris T

Actually I thought that the Doctor's point was that 'rape is wrong' is, when you get down to it, just an opinion, and, by extension, morals are just 'opinion', and therefore relative, and not absolute. I didn't detect any reference to your oft-quoted (and very laudible) saying, 'your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.'

Well, since you bring it up, that "right" is, when it comes down to it, just another opinion, as is, indeed, that "no one has the right to inflict harm on another".

This doesn't mean, however, that I will not stand up and defend those opinions(!) against those who wish to infringe them.

Well that much is obvious! But then everyone could agree that there is no God and morality is entirely a matter of personal opinion, yet without it being true. We're going to have to agree to differ on this point.

Ok, but one final comment: I can prove that Pi equals 3.14159265... and always will (unless you get serious into advanced hyper-mathematics!)

That is a universal *truth*, not an "opinion".

Who was a committed Christian and, despite his fearsome reputation as a civil rights campaigner, apparently never made any public statement in favour of or against homosexual people.

I never said he did.

That comment was in the context of your statement "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."

I've seen the letter posted on Snopes before. It is very funny but it completely fails to grasp the most basic principles of Biblical interpretation, which are due respect for context and identification of literary genre.

In which case there are quite a few "Christians" who have also failed to grasp that "most basic principle too", see Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell et al...!

As for Christians campaigning for society to pick up on their moral outlook, well Christianity is an evangelistic religion. It is our duty to share with the world how we believe God wants the world to be.

And it is my right to tell you that I'm not interested.

Unfortunately some Christians won't take *no* for an answer.

And yes, I would like you to live your life in a certain way even though you don't want to, because I believe that in the long term, it's for your eternal good. Of course, you can be assured that I will never force you to live the way I want you to except using the democratic means open to you, me and everyone else.

Fine, thank you. But I don't share your beliefs and I'd prefer not to have them *forced* on me, be they by evangelism or democratic means.

I will remind you that the "democratic means" were what caused homosexuality to be a crime for so many years in this country with the attendant misery and suffering that gays experienced because of it.

And which religious group was responsible for that...? (That's rhetorical, btw!)

At the end of the day this is a legal issue as much as it's a moral one and laws only change when society wants them to.

Which is often when a repressed minority has the courage to stand up and say "we're as mad as hell and we're not going to take this any more!" (or words to that effect and is willing to *fight* to get the rights that are being denied to them.

I know you are a committed liberal but as a Christian I believe that absolute freedom is a myth and true freedom only exists within the boundaries set by God. We are poles apart on this issue.

Yes, I believe that entirely!
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

All snipped

Apart from the "violence" part (I'd walk away from it. If I couldn't walk away, I'd run away. If I couldn't do that, I'd try to get someone else to intervene) I can pretty much agree with all the comments you made.

Good post.
__________________

Originally Posted by blackthorn

how do these things work in reality ? does someone have a casting vote or do they debate/argue for weeks.

I don't know, but IMO the only sensible way would be for 100% agreement.

If anyone had doubts as to the suitability of the adopters (and presuming those doubts were based on reason, not prejudice) I would say the adoption shouldn't be allowed.

[danielf]

Someone's working down the list here

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Id still like to see more comments on the Moby outward statement in his interview

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill over this.

And then theres this site which seems to highlight that they do indeed have flaws,

So there's domestic violence in gay relationships? So what? There's domestic violence in straight relationships too. This doesn't make gays worse that straights or make them less suitable for adoption.

and they are harder to address, for several reasons, Namely homophobia, getting turned away, amongst others. Id have to say some may be scared of applying for counselling as they have also perpetrated some indecent offences.

In parts of the USA it's illegal (an "indecent offence") to perform oral or anal sex, even if you're a straight couple. If anyone in those states applied for counselling, they could find themselves in jail. Your point is what, exactly?

As for the homophobia to some extent i believe its a card that is overplayed at times to achieve positive discrimination,

Possibly you're right. (I invite you to consider the phrase "Is it because I is black?"!!)

and some bring a certain amount of the homophobia about by commiting indecent assaults of varying levels.

Again with the "indenct assault" business! Why don't you go all the way and claim that they're child abusers too? (Yes, some gays abuse children. But, as I demonstrated with those links I posted earlier in response to Salu's question, straights abuse children too and family members are most likely to do so)

This doenst mean there is no natural homophobia or influenced homophobia wether consciosly administered or not.

No, but it sure as hell indicates that there *is* a lot of homophobia around!

Id be pretty confident in saying at times that could certainly be true that the abuse can have affected the sexuall orientation.

I'd also be pretty confident in saying that *any* abuse or rape would have an effect on someone's sexual inclinations!

Im sure I saw somewhere that :
1. abuse against males is one of the most unreported offences so real statistics are [...] unknown quantity. -- That seems a pretty obvious statement in my mind

Yes, it is pretty obvious, especially given society's attitudes to men, abuse and homosexuality.

2. pre addolescent abuse is as much familier as outside of family but the proportion changes significantly to external during and after adolescent.

Possibly.

But I'm still not sure what point you're actually trying to make.

Abuse happens. Domestic Violence happens. It's regrettable, but it's a fact and it would be a better world if it didn't.

Still, however, none of this makes a credible argument against gay adoption.
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

But it does stand to reason that they are less likely to seek or obtain help for certain flaws.

So what is the solution? Ban gay adoption or change attitudes so these people aren't denied (by commission or omission) they help they should be entitled to?

But Iv yet to see anyone but me condem his apparent intent to deliberately attempt to contort a childs sexuall orientation outcome.

If I *really* believed that he would actually attempt to do such a thing I would condemn him for it, but frankly I think he's just either making a heavy handed point or seeking publicity in a particularly crass manner.
__________________

Originally Posted by Angua

How about this one http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/o...0/NEWS3ZM.html

"She said: "I think my uncle would have been fascinated by the experimental side of the two women having a child, but as for two women bringing up a child as a couple, that would have really gone against the grain. He wouldn't have liked their sexual orientation.

"I remember him as being a very chauvinistic man and from what I was told by my mother, his sister, he was interested in IVF because he objected to women having all the power to reproduce. "

Hmm...!!!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

And it is my right to tell you that I'm not interested.

Unfortunately some Christians won't take *no* for an answer.

Fine, thank you. But I don't share your beliefs and I'd prefer not to have them *forced* on me, be they by evangelism or democratic means.

So why don't you (and others with the same view) save those words for the Christians who are actually trying to force their beliefs on you?

Originally Posted by Russ D

So why don't you (and others with the same view) save those words for the Christians who are actually trying to force their beliefs on you?

Russ, that is well off topic for this thread and I'm not going to answer it here because it's likely to end up with this discussion being closed.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

Russ, that is well off topic for this thread and I'm not going to answer it here because it's likely to end up with this discussion being closed.

You brought it up. Perhaps I'll try that line in future when I want to dodge a question.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

You brought it up. Perhaps I'll try that line in future when I want to dodge a question.

Originally Posted by Russ D

You brought it up.

Ahem.

Originally Posted by Chris T

As for Christians campaigning for society to pick up on their moral outlook, well Christianity is an evangelistic religion. It is our duty to share with the world how we believe God wants the world to be.

He brought it up, I just responded. You then tried to drag it out.

Perhaps I'll try that line in future when I want to dodge a question.

Perhaps you could try attributing quotes accurately.

Now shall we drop this because it's going even further off-topic?

[Russ]

Well if you're going to bring up a point on a public forum, you can expect to have it responded to etc etc

I haven't dragged anything out. You made a statement which I think was totally irrelevant so I'm questioning why you felt the need to say it.