Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Salu
Quote:
|
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 ie it's not usual. Neither is it normal; It is also deviant as I mentioned earlier. So that's why they face the attitudes of others. |
You miss the point that whilst those are, by the dictionary, strictly correct, it is *not* simply a matter of it being "different", but other people considering it to be *wrong*.
Most people don't support football team <foo>, so by definition that is "unnatural" and "not normal". Most people these days don't go to church or are religious, yet that's not considered "deviant".
There is more to it than that and those words have implicit sub-texts of it being "wrong" and "unacceptable", not just "different".
Quote:
|
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...
|
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.
I don't watch Soap Operas, should I campaign to outlaw them because *I* don't want to see them? Of course not.
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Yes, some are militant. Just like the difference between eg Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. Would you say, however, that either of them were wrong for wanting to be considered equal?
Quote:
|
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...
|
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".
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
[...]I don't agree with the comparative analology you used regarding mixed races. Skin colour can hardly make a difference to an upbringing
|
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?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
But the people most likely to abuse a child are very often their own "heterosexual" biological parents!
|
You're very keen for people to show evidence so I would bounce this back to you. What is your evidence?
|
* * * * *
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
* * * * *
Quote:
Quote:
|
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? 
|
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.
Quote:
|
I understand that we can't be that prescriptive but I do wonder how many people would agree that is it "normal".
|
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"!)
Quote:
Quote:
|
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?
|
"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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
*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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.
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*.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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).
There is *no* reason to deny gays the right to marriage, but there are plenty of people who will try to justify this form of discrimination because it fits in with their prejudices.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Russ D
|
I wish them all the best!
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marina
See attachment....... didn't do an extensive literature search, just picked up articles that had abstracts and weren't reviews from books.... from last 7/8 years.
|
Excellent find! Thank you very much for posting that
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
Does this qualify for the Most Helpful Post Of April Award? !
|
If you nominate it, I'll vote for it!
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
My old man rode bikes, and still managed to bring up 3 kids. We aren't all drug dealers and degenerates either.
|
"We aren't *all* drug dealers and degenerates"??
Surely that implies that *some* of you are either or both...?!
Join CF
You are here: 
