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

[NotAllThere]

Going "with the flow" need not be mindless. "The flow" might well be perfectly logical and sensible...

Well, you would say that wouldn't you.

Going with the flow is, by definition, mindless. It requires no thought, no reasoning, no effort. The closest to argument, debate, discussion is "you are obviously dinosaurs otherwise you'd believe the same as me". But what you see as progress (evolution), others see as decay (entropy).

This was quite nicely expressed in today's Times, by The Rev Canon Dr Gavin Ashenden. "Until the hubris of our cultural arrogance gives way to fresh spirit of inquiry, the fault lines of this debate will continue to be misunderstood in terms of traditional v progressive, instead of renewal v decay." (Emphasis mine).

[shaunbhoy]

Well, you would say that wouldn't you.

OOooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! Get Betty Big Bollocks!!!

Going with the flow is, by definition, mindless. It requires no thought, no reasoning, no effort.

Maybe in your case. But for some of us, we deliberate about what makes sense and is valid before deciding upon an opinion. If that opinion tallies with the majority it need be neither lazy or invalid, but could quite easily be construed as "going with the flow", provided one surrounds oneself with like-minded rational company.
I expect that at one point it was deemed as "going with the flow" to poo-poo suggestions that the Earth was flat.
It might also be bracketed as "going with the flow" to suggest you are a bit of a when it comes to moderating, as a number of posters have suggested such.
However, I will refrain from jumping to that conclusion until I have studied the matter in greater detail.

[d000hg]

It's not going with the flow if you consider the matter objectively and come to your own conclusion, which happens to be the same as other peoples'. It's going with the flow if you take the common/fashionable viewpoint without doing your own research.

[shaunbhoy]

It's not going with the flow if you consider the matter objectively and come to your own conclusion, which happens to be the same as other peoples'. It's going with the flow if you take the common/fashionable viewpoint without doing your own research.

Now you are just arguing over semantics.

[Zippy]

Nobody important ever believed the Earth was flat. I just thought I'd point that one out before the dragon-worshippers log in ...

[northernladuk]

I don't really have a problem with them adopting, as has been pointed out already he will be brought up much better than most kids from council estates so can't be a bad thing. Having a mother and a step dad is probably more damaging than two happy fathers.

I don't have a problem with them being homosexual either, the flouncers and mincers I really can't stand but that is more a personality thing...

The thing that bothers me is the 'we are all equal' and 'it's natural' and all that. Technically it doesn't make people equal and it isn't natural. If you are relgious that bring in another raft of issues but forgetting that for the minute... We are only really here for one thing, to procreate and die, just like everything else. How can it be natural to want to be with a partner you can't procreate with. We would be exctint if this was natural. I don't mind people being homosexual, each to their own but I can't stand the we are all equal and I am homophobic for thinking it is unnatural. Saying that I tend to be against anything where I am told what I can and can't think/say......

[sbakoola]

Strangely I can't see what the fuss is about, provided the kid is allowed to develop his/her own views then fine. Plus the kid gets spoilt rotten also and gets a privaledged life with a pop star dad.

What more do people want ?

I'm not an Elton John fan as a person or as a pop star but it would be interesting if the kid turns out to be a stable, well rounded and successful person.

The 'surrogate' part is a bit wierd though, why can't they just adopt.

[shaunbhoy]

The 'surrogate' part is a bit wierd though, why can't they just adopt.

They tried that the previous year. "Government Regulations" in Ukraine deemed that the AIDS-infected lad they wanted to adopt was better off staying put in an Orphanage there.

[d000hg]

Now you are just arguing over semantics.

Actually I'd say I'm arguing over the denotation rather than semantics.

Nobody important ever believed the Earth was flat. I just thought I'd point that one out before the dragon-worshippers log in ...

You have an interestingly narrow definition of "important".

The thing that bothers me is the 'we are all equal' and 'it's natural' and all that. Technically it doesn't make people equal and it isn't natural. If you are relgious that bring in another raft of issues but forgetting that for the minute... We are only really here for one thing, to procreate and die, just like everything else. How can it be natural to want to be with a partner you can't procreate with.

As has been pointed out, homosexuality has been observed/studied in animals of several species and has been around in humankind for millennia. People don't only shag for procreation so how is it unnatural simply for this reason? Animals don't even have the ability to reason that sex ---> babies so they are doing it purely for enjoyment or through some hardwired instruction "put it in and squirt".

[AtW]

Get over it you pair of dinosaurs. The child will have as much chance of a happy childhood as the child of any pop star, and a great deal MORE chance than the average sprog popped out by Wayne and Waynetta Slob.

What the stupid said.

It goes without saying that your own children would have been much better off if they were Elton's...