No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

[KentPhilip]

WHS +1billion

What happened to freedom and free speech

Freedom of speech used to criticise Elton John's decision is fine. But if you go beyond that and incite people to call for his actions to be legislated against, then that is not fine. You can't have freedom of speech where that results in a reduction of freedoms in the actions of others.

[d000hg]

Freedom of speech implies everything should be legal? Or are you saying FOS doesn't include freedom to lobby for changes in the law? Both of those seem wrong. People should have been allowed to petition for gay adoption to be legal, regardless if it's right or wrong, and by the same token to petition for making it illegal too.

[xoggoth]

People can lobby or petition for what they like, however, we should have a general rule that laws restricting individual freedom must be shown to be in the general public interest or necessary for the protection of others. Be aware that if you do not accept that principle you or any of us could be the next target.

There is a legitimate concern for well being of the children here and probably sound arguments against excessive promotion of homosexuality but much of the opposition to gay rights has nothing to do with rationality.

[Zippy]

The lad is going to be loved and provided for. I really don't see the problem.

[MarillionFan]

We have discussed homosexuality vs paedophilia before. And on that occassion, and again, i say both are a naturally occurring sexual state. It's just one is now accepted(when once it wasn't) and the other is completely abhorrent. The concept of sexuality versus parenthood is simple where nature is concerned.

Only those that nature has selected to be able to have children should have children. IVF/Surrogacy etc are all mans attempts to beat nature.

I personally don't think gay couples should be able to adopt or have surrogate children, but that it only based on the concept that an ideal family should have a Dad as well as a Mum, and so if you have a choice to have children it should be an ideal setup.

Concerning the first point, would you be happy for Gary Glitter to adopt/have another child or Elton John?

[xoggoth]

I personally don't think gay couples should be able to adopt or have surrogate children, but that it only based on the concept that an ideal family should have a Dad as well as a Mum, and so if you have a choice to have children it should be an ideal setup.

That's what I would call a sensible objection although is there any actual evidence that children of gay marriages would turn out more useless/criminal etc than those of normal families? As it has never happened in significant numbers, probably not. Apart from the abuse risk it is probably the disapproval of society that would be most damaging. In other words the negative attitude to gays works to prove its own point.

[MarillionFan]

That's what I would call a sensible objection although is there any actual evidence that children of gay marriages would turn out more useless/criminal etc than those of normal families? As it has never happened in significant numbers, probably not. Apart from the abuse risk it is probably the disapproval of society that would be most damaging. In other words the negative attitude to gays works to prove its own point.

I don't think it's an issue of sex(two men/two women) when it comes bringing up a child. As is always true, a loving home is a loving home. My concern is, that because it is 'unnatural' in terms of procreation, coupled with the disproval of society then any children will tend to be more isolated by peers/families/societies, which in turn will lead to it's own issues(same could be said about about mixed race adoption.)

I don't believe that it is right to teach and preach to society that all inclinations, combinations of sexuality. religion & race for that matter should be the norm, and that it is wrong to have doubts or discourse lest it be believed to be prejudice, racist or homophobic.

[d000hg]

We have discussed homosexuality vs paedophilia before. And on that occassion, and again, i say both are a naturally occurring sexual state. It's just one is now accepted(when once it wasn't) and the other is completely abhorrent.

I agree that the two are not really very different. However I don't see any way to rationally describe one as an abhorrent absolute and the other as subject to social convention. There have been societies (Ancient Greece for example) where both were considered acceptable.

Concerning the first point, would you be happy for Gary Glitter to adopt/have another child or Elton John?

If Gary Glitter wants to adopt Elton, that's fine with me.

[MarillionFan]

I agree that the two are not really very different. However I don't see any way to rationally describe one as an abhorrent absolute and the other as subject to social convention. There have been societies (Ancient Greece for example) where both were considered acceptable.

If Gary Glitter wants to adopt Elton, that's fine with me.

The only way to categorize is based around Society. At present society deems one abhorrent, the other acceptable. 100 years ago, children outside of wedlock was also abhorrent.

Depends on time/place/society.

[d000hg]

The only way to categorize is based around Society. At present society deems one abhorrent, the other acceptable. 100 years ago, children outside of wedlock was also abhorrent.

Depends on time/place/society.

Sorry I thought you were saying one was an absolute, my mistake.