Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!

[BBKing]

So you never had stories read to you as a young child, ones that would conflict with the lifestyle the child is being brought up in if gay adoption went ahead. And you dont in any way consider the child would suffer somemajor confusion issues there too ?

Considering we're talking about 2005 rather than when Graham was a child (just turned 40, I believe), it's worth examining what a child growing up now would be having read to them. I have a child, and a few books for him. Call it politically correct do-gooding if you like, but I don't think any of them portray married couples as the only way to live, or indeed humans at all. They're mostly about bears and trains and fire engines, IIRC. No doubt this is evidence of the decline in morality as he'll grow up thinking that normality is a bear driving a fire engine.

Thinking about it, anyone growing up now will read Harry Potter, about an orphan growing up in a highly abusive family environment. Would that cause 'confusion issues', whatever that means? I read enormous amounts of Arthur Ransome's Swallows and Amazons, two of the main characters* of which are brought up by a single parent mother, after their father died. So I read books that 'conflict with the lifestyle the child is being brought up in', and it doesn't appear to have left me with any problems.

Children are capable of coping with an enormous amount more than people credit them with - they are after all humans, with human intelligence - what they lack is experience. They aren't going to get it by being insulated from the real world, and they certainly aren't going to get it if you pretend to them that the world exists in agreement with your prejudices**. That's the recipe for a nasty shock later.

*Nancy and Peggy Blackett

** My grandmother, a highly God-fearing Catholic, once tried to stop me reading about Tchaikovsky, presumably thinking reading about homosexuals makes you gay.
[edit for spelling]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

So you never had stories read to you as a young child, ones that would conflict with the lifestyle the child is being brought up in if gay adoption went ahead. And you dont in any way consider the child would suffer somemajor confusion issues there too ?

I saw Star Wars for the first time when I was four years old. When I came out of the cinema I was confused why we didn`t have droids, landspeeders and blaster pistols. It entirely conflicted with the lifestyle I was being brought up in. How are parents supposed to explain that to their children? Ban this fantasy SF filth now I say, think of the children.
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Now back to the topic of the children being adopted, how are they as parents going to encourage the child to beleive and dream of a life long true love as a hetrosexual type relationship when the parents are really demonstrating either the 2 ugly sisters from cinderella as a way of living or the slipper fitted Dick wittington ?

Maybe it's not a problem for them. Perhaps they aren`t bigots with totally closed minds. Perhaps explaining a tricky issue to their children doesn`t challenge the intellectually. Perhaps they are big enough to consider that education of children shouldn`t be underpinned with prejudice. You've already suggested violence as a solution to problems in earlier comments, have you considered thinking over fighting?

Originally Posted by Shaun

Just because "The Church" has been involved in some good social changes doesn't mean that it will automatically continue. Personally I believe that it's currently doing a lot of harm to the world and its population. Do you honestly think if religion wasnââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t involved in the changing of the legislation you mentioned weââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢d still be shoving kids up chimneys? Canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t see it myself.

The morality and legal system of this country is still, even after decades of secularisation, overwhelmingly Christian. You simply can't postulate whether children would still be working up chimneys today if it weren't for Christians because to do so would require you to illustrate an alternative history for our country that would be hugely different to the one we have. Nevertheless, that's a bit of a side issue. Whether or not someone, somewhere would have taken up the cause is irrelevant. These great social challenges were taken up by committed Christians and there is nothing anyone can do to dissemble on that fact.

This is where we differ, yes everyone has the right to try and influence society, however I don't believe that those changes should be sent down from "on high", dictated either from a Pope or a book. If people have genuine concerns about something then thatâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s great let them lobby on the issue. However just to state that their religion condones it then its wrong to allow that to affect others lives.

Forgive me, but I find your distinction between my beliefs (from 'on high' or 'out of a book') and yours ('genuine concerns') to be entirely artificial and not a little patronizing. When you accord your own moral viewpoint a greater validity than mine, simply because you hold the origin of that viewpoint in higher regard than you do the origin of mine, are you not simply doing exactly what you accuse Christians of doing?

Thatâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not my point Chris and you know it. My point is that I personally feel it unacceptable that religious views are being forced on people who don't have the same convictions. In lobbying to keep the law the same (which I assume from your posts you want) then you are imposing your (religious) beliefs on me any many others, not just on this issue but also on others.

I know you're not deliberately setting out to exclude one group from political expression but I still say that inadvertantly that is exactly what you are pushing for. Everybody has a worldview. For some, that view is predicated on a belief in a deity and a sense of responsibility towards that deity. For others, their view arises out of the conviction that there is no higher authority. You have expressly stated that you believe morality derived from a belief in higher authority is not valid, or at least less valid, than morality that is derived in the absence of any regard for higher authority. The result is that you ascribe yourself the right to campaign for society to be structured in a way that best suits you, while seeking to deny others that same right simply because you disagree with the basis of their belief. That, whether you mean it to be or not, is a pretty good definition of intolerance.

Like I have said before, I have no religious convictions and believe religion (in all its guises) to be a fraud, why should something I believe to be fundamentally wrong stop me from doing something?

Let me turn that on its head. I believe passionately that this universe has a divine creator God to whom we are all morally responsible and I believe that those who reject religion to be in denial. Why should something (namely, an atheistic worldview) I believe to be fundamentally wrong, stop me from doing something?

[Salu]

Originally Posted by Graham

.......the entire gay community with.

There seems to be a divide here between those who feel homosexuality is normal and natural and those that don't. The very fact that there is a "gay community" shows an element of ghettoisation. If there was a hetro-community then they would be accused of homophobia....so are the gay community heterophobic? You don't hear that word much do you? Surely if homosexuals are trying to promote themselves as natural and normal and wish acceptance then a "gay community" will not help in this. Sure, I understand it's about solidarity and support etc but....

Also no matter what one feels about whether gay marriages/child upbringing is harmful or harmless; the fact is we don't know! Society has had thousands of years of experience of bringing up children in a heterosexual environment but very little experience of homosexual environments. Of course I am not saying that all heterosexual environments will produce balanced, healthly children as there is a lot more to bringing up children than their parents sexual orientation.

Another thought is that there is evidence (although I won't attempt to search for it as I am at work) that children who have been sexually abused are more inclined to be gay. Surely this is influence?

Devience by the way is "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society." according to the dictionary. So that would place homosexuality in that catagory.

However as I have said before. I do not persecute gays. I support them as people but not their actions.

Originally Posted by Salu

There seems to be a divide here between those who feel homosexuality is normal and natural and those that don't. The very fact that there is a "gay community" shows an element of ghettoisation.

Yes, of course, because they have been *forced* into that by the prejudices of the "heterosexual community" in the past.

If there was a hetro-community then they would be accused of homophobia....so are the gay community heterophobic? You don't hear that word much do you? Surely if homosexuals are trying to promote themselves as natural and normal and wish acceptance then a "gay community" will not help in this. Sure, I understand it's about solidarity and support etc but....

But whilst they're still faced with the attitudes that some people have that what they're doing is "unnatural" or "a sin" or "deviant" or "not normal" it's a bit different.

Yes, there are courageous people who have stood up and created organisation like Gay Pride and promoted themselves as natural and normal, but not everybody can or would do that because of lingering prejudices.

Also no matter what one feels about whether gay marriages/child upbringing is harmful or harmless; the fact is we don't know! Society has had thousands of years of experience of bringing up children in a heterosexual environment but very little experience of homosexual environments.

No, of course we don't know for certain, but that ignorance is not a valid reason to *deny* gay couples the right to adopt any more than a couple being of mixed races was not a valid reason either.

Another thought is that there is evidence (although I won't attempt to search for it as I am at work) that children who have been sexually abused are more inclined to be gay. Surely this is influence?

But the people most likely to abuse a child are very often their own "heterosexual" biological parents! Not the most useful argument in this discussion

Devience by the way is "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society." according to the dictionary. So that would place homosexuality in that catagory.

Yes, that is a precise dictionary definition of the word, however to use it solely in that manner is to ignore the underlying implications that go along with it when it's used by some people.

However as I have said before. I do not persecute gays. I support them as people but not their actions.

Pardon me if I think that sounds somewhat hypocritical as you seem to be saying one thing and doing another.

All the majority of gays want is for others to mind their own business and let them live their lives in their own ways. If we deny them that right or deny information to those who want to know more about their sexuality and feelings, we're end up with that "ghettoisation" you mentioned at the top of this post.

[Xaccers]

I take it no one knows of any studies into the effects of same sex parents on the upbringing of children then, or any personal experience of same sex parents and how it affected their children?

You're all talking guesswork and uneducated opinions then.

[Russ]

My views, despite what certain people will try to tell you, are bourne out of personal experiences and concern for children in general. I can only go on what I know so far and have yet to see anything which persuades me otherwise.

[Salu]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, of course, because they have been *forced* into that by the prejudices of the "heterosexual community" in the past.

For a split second I actually thought you were agreeing with someone!

Originally Posted by Graham

But whilst they're still faced with the attitudes that some people have that what they're doing is "unnatural" or "a sin" or "deviant" or "not normal" it's a bit different.

But it *is* unnatural Graham, by definition (Dictionary=Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature) ie it's not usual. Neither is it normal; ie what the majority of people in society are, something like 0.5% of the population is gay. It is also deviant as I mentioned earlier. So that's why they face the attitudes of others. The majority of society must feel something against what they are doing or else they would be wholly accepted into society. I don't believe they are...

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, there are courageous people who have stood up and created organisation like Gay Pride and promoted themselves as natural and normal, but not everybody can or would do that because of lingering prejudices.

"Courageous?.....perhaps....but maybe verging on militant from what I have seen. Nevertheless you have to admire them for standing up for what they believe in whether you agree or not....I can't agree that it's natural and normal though. If natural and normal are formed by the majority then the antithesis must be unnatural etc...

Originally Posted by Graham

No, of course we don't know for certain, but that ignorance is not a valid reason to *deny* gay couples the right to adopt any more than a couple being of mixed races was not a valid reason either.

Oooooh another semi agreement . And I agree with you that ignorance is not a valid reason to deny them adopting. However I don't agree with the comparative analology you used regarding mixed races. Skin colour can hardly make a difference to an upbringing (and we have had many years to show this) but removing an entire gender from a child's upbringing can hardly bring balance..?

Originally Posted by Graham

But the people most likely to abuse a child are very often their own "heterosexual" biological parents! Not the most useful argument in this discussion

You're very keen for people to show evidence so I would bounce this back to you. What is your evidence?

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, that is a precise dictionary definition of the word, however to use it solely in that manner is to ignore the underlying implications that go along with it when it's used by some people.

It's either a definition or not. Maybe you should write to the Oxford English Dictionary and express your concerns?

Seriously though I understand that we can't be that prescriptive but I do wonder how many people would agree that is it "normal". A lot would use the wicca saying mentioned previously "If it doesn't affect me then let them do it..." type of thing...but there is immense pressure from the politically correct world we live in to say that. I wonder how many people actually DO feel nonplussed by it. Most blokes I meet when seeing other men kiss for example, do something on the lines of "errrrrrrrrrr [wincing slightly] make some funny comment and then add the token line of ".....but it's OK for them" or "whatever turns you on". The women however don't always have that extreme reaction. Likewise if a man sees two women kiss he may actively encourage it whereas the women wince again....

Originally Posted by Graham

Pardon me if I think that sounds somewhat hypocritical as you seem to be saying one thing and doing another.

Why?

Originally Posted by Graham

All the majority of gays want is for others to mind their own business and let them live their lives in their own ways. If we deny them that right or deny information to those who want to know more about their sexuality and feelings, we're end up with that "ghettoisation" you mentioned at the top of this post.

If it were just homosexuality then most would probably agree with you. I wouldn't condone it but I accept that it happens etc. But what we are talking about here is adopting/raising children. As I mentioned before we do not know the potential outcomes and we should be very careful before we put the gay couples rights above the childs.

We are also talking about gay marriage. This is not right. Marriage is for men and women. It is now (in UK) and always has been. It should not be available for gays. However recognising long term partnership for gay couples, legally should be catered for. One should not lose their long term home if their partner dies because they are not seen as a partner in the law.

[Russ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/4480605.stm

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Salu

<snip> Marriage is for men and women.

says who?
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/4480605.stm

Good luck to them.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by orangebird

says who?

Salu for one, he's giving his opinion. Plus millions of others who hold the same view, myself included.

[Salu]

Originally Posted by Orangebird

says who?

History

Originally Posted by Orangebird

Good luck to them.

I wonder which one will be the bride?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Salu

History

Lame

I wonder which one will be the bride?

Also, Lame.
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

Salu for one, he's giving his opinion. Plus millions of others who hold the same view, myself included.

Well, there are millions (like myself) who hold the view that marriage is for two people that love each other and want to announce their commitment. Regardless of their gender.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Well, there are millions (like myself) who hold the view that marriage is for two people that love each other and want to announce their commitment. Regardless of their gender.

Fine. Stalemate?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Fine. Stalemate?

Absolutely.