The article states that gay couples have to be the registered parents of any child they adopt. Keyword being adopt. Meaning some mother and or father waved their right to be seen as the mother or father. In some cases, the child while having a genetic father and mother, has been abandoned by both of them. I think having Parent 1 and Parent 2 is a small concession to make just so a child can be given a chance to grow in a loving environment. Think the child of a gay couple is going to be all messed up because they don't have a father and mother figure. Well let me tell you; there are a lot of people out there who grew up with a father and mother and still ended up being a fucked up individual, and often it's in no small part because of their father and mother. Myself included.

On a personal note, I forfeited the chance to have a child when I decided I needed to live my life as a woman, not a man. Some days I deal with it through gritted teeth and anger; other days I deal with it with tears streaming down my face. I wanted a child so badly, but considering how hard it is for gay people to be able to adopt, I couldn't see how any authority would allow me to do likewise. I guess it's for the best, because I wouldn't want my child to be made to feel different and ridiculed just because they happened to have a trans parent, or parents. Regardless of the fact that child would have been loved with all my heart.

I consider you an intelligent person, Jorge. But that is without a doubt, one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. Marriage is an act performed by two consenting adults. Last time I checked, there is no possible way for an animal to give their consent to such a thing as marriage.

"What's that Billy, you've decided that you love Lassie and you want to marry him."

"Yes, dad."

And what do you say, Lassie"

"Bark, bark, bark"

"Well that settles it, we're going to have a marriage."

Seriously, you're comparing apples to rocks here, Jorge, and gay people are just as capable of seeing that as straight people.

Allow me to clarify a few things, just in case my first response is misinterpreted. The article Jorge linked to also states that "The decision follows the revelation last month that details of the holder’s sex could be erased from all passports to spare transgender people from embarrassment". I believe such action is wrong. The UK Passport Service provides me with the ability to change the gender listed on my passport once I have taken certain steps and changed the gender listed on my birth certificate. I've no issue with taking those steps, and doing things the correct way. As for the gender listed on my passport causing me embarrassment; hogwash. The only problem it's caused for me so far is being detained briefly while certain things are verified, oh, and the time when I had to catch a later flight from my stopover in Philadelphia because they took so long to verify things that I missed my connecting flight. It's actually quite funny to see the look on the customs guy's face when I speak to him in a female voice and then he looks at my passport and it says I'm male. Considering the security risks associated with flying these days, I think it would be a good idea to keep gender listed on UK passports.

I fail to see why anyone would have an issue with a simple rewording though. Your father and mother are otherwise known as your parents. So why the issue with listing them as Parent 1 and Parent 2? All it does is accommodate more people. It doesn't complicate things in my opinion. It's not making anyone's life harder than need be. That this rewording is something which has been demanded does not settle well with me. Decent people ask for something to happen. I don't demand anything, and I don't want any group that is supposed to be acting in my better interests to do otherwise. I fully understand why 'normal' people get peeved with gays when things are being demanded.

Likewise I could say that marriage is the act performed between a man and a woman for the creation of a family, not between two people of the same sex.

If you stretch the definition of the act to include marriage between people of the same sex, what do you think will stop the next generation from stretching it even further to include people and animals? I mean, why not?! 

I know it's a shocking and far fetched example, but it was used on purpose to prove a point: bestiality is still considered aberrant behavior these days, but then so was homosexuality a few years ago. Now homosexuality is so common, and so 'in your face', that it's considered normal. It's no longer simply tolerated, and the proof is that the gay lobby thinks they have the right to demand that passports state 'person 1' and 'person 2' instead of 'mother and father'.

For me, and I'm not American, the latter is as ridiculous as the demands of the Hispanics in the United States (?) for street signs in English *and* Spanish, and bilingual education programs in public schools! What the...? They're guests in another country - learn the local language! 

The question is, where will all this stretching of 'normal behavior' stop? Will it ever stop? What are the actual consequences?

The fact that animals are irrational is irrelevant, since bestiality lovers would once again use the 'tolerance' card like all the other minorities did before them, the 'live and let live' argument: 'what is it to you if x decides to marry their dog? It doesn't hurt you, and makes him or her happy.'

And so, if we once again fall for this argument to accommodate the wishes of yet another minority, we allow our perception of 'normal' - of right and wrong, if you wish - to be further distorted.

Please feel free to replace 'bestiality' in this example with anything else you personally find aberrant behavior, it's just an example.

Also please note that I am always an advocate for tolerance, which is the practice of permitting a thing of which one might disapprove. Tolerance, however - and once again - is not the same as going as far as to pass laws that deem such behaviors 'the norm'.

True in regards to World population but I think we should think of minorities on a localized level.

Great thread!

There was a cartoon in the paper years ago [about the time homosexuality became 'gay'] .....

"I'm all for decriminalizing homosexuality....just so long as they don't make it compulsory." ....

sorry, pretty stupid if I wanted to give my opinion, which I don't, so ignore this.

no, it's still your choice Jafo, you can be all you want to be.

Giz!!! Hide Radar, quick!  

There was a time when epilepsy was considered demon possession, too; and women who owned property were burned as witches.  I would like to think that with our ever-expanding access to science and knowledge, we'd progressed beyond archaic superstitious judgments.  The reason bestiality, in my opinion, should be refrained from is that animals, like children, are incapable of giving consent. 

One would HOPE that, as with children there's fundamentally GREATER reasons than "giving consent" ....

I am with you there Jafo.

Yes, of course, but read back what I wrote in my first post: I never said a healthy society is or should be 'static' (that would be as sick as a society that knows no boundaries, which is what we are leaning toward these days). What I claim is that virtue is in the middle.

There is no good to be found in burning someone at the stake, be it a woman or a man. In fact, there is no good in killing another human being, even if/unless it absolutely cannot be avoided and failure to act would cause serious harm to others (i.e.; self-defense, etc...). However, the death penalty (which is nothing but mob revenge and barbaric from an European's point of view) is still widely supported in the US.

My point is not to start a debate on the death penalty, just to state the obvious and what I have been pointing out all along: what is considered uncivilized or barbaric for one society might be regarded as perfectly normal and justified in another. This means the definition of 'normal behavior' is NEVER static, but always relative to what that society or group of people accepts as 'normal behavior' at a specific point in time.

Since we were talking about children, the Masai tribe in Africa, for instance, have this costume where when a young woman reaches puberty (11-12 years) she is usually married immediately to an older man. Until this time, however, she may live and have sex with the youthful warriors. For us, this is shocking and considered child abuse. For them, it's perfectly normal.

This is the problem, because, as you can see, there is almost no limit to what can be *eventually* considered normal. However, I believe that 'good and bad', unlike the relative 'accepted behavior' and 'normal' notions, are actually *absolute* values.

The killing another human being is *always* wrong, even in self-defense. At most, you have 'mitigating circumstances' to justify/tolerate such an act, but the act of killing itself is *still* wrong and always to be avoided whenever possible.

So, a society's moral compass should always be based on these absolute 'good and bad' values. And what are those? You need not look any further than the Bible's 10 commandments: though shall not kill, though shall not steal, though shall not present false witness, though shall love your neighbor as thy self, etc...

Regardless on one's personal opinion on the existence of God or not, one has to agree that those simple 10 rules are the recipe for a healthy, happy and truly free society.

Anyway, a lot more to be said about the relation between the absolute 'good and bad' values vs. 'extremely permissive behavior', but my fingers are tired for now.

No, I absolutely will NOT agree that those simple 10 rules are the recipe for a healthy, happy and truly free society, because the first 4 pertain to a god that I do not believe in and there is no scientific evidence to prove exists, and puts limits on my freedom as a nonbeliever.  The fifth one isn't a problem for me, because my parents were decent people, but my husband would have a problem with, since his dad was an abusive jerk, and he would have been better off being raised by wolves.  The last one is almost impossible to follow in a Capitalistic society, and "love your neighbor as yourself" isn't one of the 10 commandments, it's from the New Testament book of Mark, and IMO is the ONLY rule that's necessary, even though it's attributed to savior I do not believe in.

Not going to debate on that, because we would be debating on matters of faith (i.e.; things that cannot be scientifically proven) and thus we would not get anywhere.

Anyway, even though I personally believe those first two are as important as the others (and by the way, different religions divide the ten commandments in different manners) and the corner stone of the whole thing, I didn't mention them because the idea was to highlight those which pertain just to the relationship between ourselves as human beings.

Truly sorry to hear that, but that doesn't mean that the 'honor thy parents' commandment is wrong, only that your husband's dad was abusive.

The 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, etc...' is impossible to follow in a Capitalistic society? I actually think it can be interpreted as the personification of the 'American Dream' (the promise of the possibility of prosperity and success): work hard for the things you want and you too can have them... in opposition to spending all your time sitting on your butt coveting the things your neighbor has.

Desire for something is not the same thing as coveting something. Covetousness is when desire becomes inordinate and unlawful, when you actually resent your neighbor for the things he has instead of being happy for him and working hard to get them yourself and being happy for what you achieved so far.

Anyway, lets get God out of this discussion and focus only on 'good and bad'. Surely these absolutes exist whether you believe in God or not, no?

Yes, Jorge's right re 'covet'....it's definitely not the same as 'desire' ...

My apologies for the late reply. I ended up sleeping quite a lot yesterday due to feeling ill and not being able to sleep properly over the last few days because it's been so warm (read humid). Anyhoo...

Given that I'm a misanthrope, there's quite a lot I find to be abhorrent about my species. But I guess violence is something I consider abhorrent behaviour, especially when it comes to something like war. I'm not going to turn this into a war thread, but simply state that while acceptance of war as something necessary is declining, it still doesn't change the fact that we allow our governments to join in or take us to war.

K10w3 seems to have said what I was going to say re; marriage and consent. I guess a fundamentally greater reason would be love. It's dubious as to whether an animal has any concept of love. Certainly their behaviour can seem like they love us, but maybe that's nothing more than anthropomorphism on our part. A child may understand love, but they don't understand it on the same level as an adult. Marriage is the greatest sign of your love and devotion to your partner. It is possible to have a relationship with your partner for decades, or indeed the rest of your life, and procreate with them in that time, but not be married to them. Marriage is a way for you to show just how much you love them. It's considered the ultimate sign of commitment.

Honour is a two way street. My father showed me no honour for the last nine years of his life. I didn't see or hear from him during that time. Then he decrees from his deathbed that "anyone who hasn't made up with me by the time I die isn't welcome at my funeral." I won't be blackmailed. Especially not by a man who knows death is snapping at his ass. I won't have it made out like I was in the wrong, when both me and my siblings attempted to stay in touch with him by phone, and by going to see him; actions he never reciprocated. When we did phone him or see him, the first thing he would say is "hello stranger." Strangers are what he got in the end. I didn't make up with him, and I didn't go to his funeral. Honour is a two way street, if your father and mother don't honour you, why should you honour them? Because of a commandment? I don't react very well to being commanded.

Absolute BS! How many people are working hard and getting nowhere at the moment? How long has that been the norm? How many people are busting their ass doing a job and doing a degree at the same time just to try and give themselves a chance to get a slice of the 'American Dream' pie, and ultimately finding out that there is a limited amount of jobs in that vocation, or better yet, that they don't have any actual experience (that good old catch 22). So they're just going to have be content to flip burgers or some other soul-destroying, mind-numbing job. They have the same goal oriented view in Japan, where the teenagers/young adults are studying up to and beyond fourteen hours a day, just so they can get a job that will give them the things that they want. The problem is that there are so many of them doing this, that employers only want the best of the best. After all the hard work and all that they've sacrificed to achieve their goal, so many of them are being left to feel that their life is over, and that it was all for nought. Some are snapping like twigs under the pressure to succeed.

Yes, I agree that they exist, and thanks for saying good and bad, not good and evil. Not only do I agree that they exist, but I believe that one can not exist without the other. They are inextricably bound; bad comes out of good, and good comes out of bad.

As I stated, bestiality was just an example I used. What I am saying is that every concept can be stretched and distorted - if we let it - until *everything* is justified, even the marriage of a human to an animal. I take it you understand I am definitely not defending the marriage between a person and an animal, lol

Let's take same sex marriage. Throughout the ages, the basic concept of marriage, common to all mankind, has been the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and mutual support, or love. Suddenly, and for the first time in history, we are being asked to take 'between a man and a woman' out of the definition of marriage. Why? Whatever is left if you do is NOT 'marriage', but something else. So call it something else if you will, legally binding union, whatever, but do NOT distort the true meaning of marriage, nor let it be distorted.

Unfortunately what we are being told to do is to NOT make a distinction between same sex unions and marriage, as if they were one and the same thing. Alas, they are not.

When a minority demands tolerance and respect, they are also bound to respect and tolerate the rules and institutions of the majority; not try to manipulate and distort them to serve their own purposes and agendas. But, as I said, the ultimate purpose of a minority left unchecked is not to be tolerated, but for them themselves to become the majority, and thus be able to impose their rules on others. And that is exactly what will happen if that minority is not opposed at some point.

Ultimately, the question is: what will same sex marriages eventually do to our society and to our children, and to our concept of family which is already in shambles? Will the results be good or bad? I have my own opinion, and you can pretty much guess what it is.

This is obviously a sensitive subject for you, and I fully understand your pain and do not want to add to it.

Please try to remember that forgiveness (letting go of the pain, anger and resentment) is essential for *you* to be able to move forward. This is why tolerance and understanding are so important: you might not agree with the actions of someone else and even have been hurt by them, but, if you are able to understand them and why they acted that way, you will be the better person and the burden you carry will feel much lighter.

No, not just because of a commandment, but because what that commandment implies is an intrinsic part of who you are. The same way some people are caring and supportive not because they feel obliged to be, but because that is who they are.

Unlike what we like to think, we have very little control over external things. The only thing we truly have control about, which we can model almost at will, is ourselves. We truly are what we decide to be, as we are defined by the choices we make. We can make ourselves change, but, of course, in order to succeed we must truly want to change. The key to this will to change is understanding ourselves - as a bonus, the more you understand yourself, the more you will understand (and tolerate the shortcomings of) others.

Some people go through life simply reacting to external events, never trying to figure out *why* they are reacting that way. Those people will never change, and will always react the same way given the same set of circumstances. Like the girl who spends her life complaining how all her boyfriends were assholes without realizing that the common thing between all of them was herself. By realizing this and understanding what is causing her to chose potential partners with the same traits over and over again, she will finally be able to break the pattern. She will have changed herself, and the consequences of this change will further reinforce her change.

So, if you chose to do good *for the right reasons* (and this implies self-understanding) and you keep at it, eventually this will become part of who you are. The opposite is also true, of course, join the wrong crowd and pretty soon their ways will be your ways.

The important thing in all of this is that what applies to an individual here, also applies to society as a whole.

The American dream is a *promise of a possibility*. It does not ensure success. Furthermore, if everybody was filthy rich, who would clean our streets, who would take our garbage out, who would take care of the power plants required to maintain our careless lifestyle?

A job does not define who you are, the same way that having a great car, a house and a boat does not make you happy. This is the big lie of capitalism.

One of the implications of that last commandment is that instead of constantly comparing what you have to what your neighbor has, you should count your blessings. This does not mean that you shouldn't strive for more, just that you shouldn't do it to the point where it becomes an obsession, where the means to achieve something becomes the purpose. In other words, don't let yourself become greedy.

You don't have to have a lot of money to be happy or content. I know this for a fact. As long as you have *enough* (ah, but what is enough? Eheh) and you are able to be content with what you have, you are generally happy! On the other hand, if you are greedy and are always striving for more, you will never be content, because your goal is a moving target and will always escape you.

Uff, big can of worms. Yes, some good does come from bad, and some bad can come from good. That doesn't mean you should do bad with the excuse that the bad you did will also generate some good.

Anyway, in all of this I mean a very simple thing: all things should be done with moderation and balance (virtue is in the middle, remember?). Too much of a good thing can kill you as quickly as a bad thing: water is good for you, but drink too much of it and it becomes poison. So, society should neither be too restrictive nor too liberal.

what was this thread about again?

Nimbin, you may have stepped on your tongue but that doesn't make you a racist/insensitive.

Political correctness and double standards.

My grandmother (z"l) said precisely the same thing (although in Yiddish), "Zu viel ist nicht gesundt." (Too much of anything is unhealthy). Of course, she was neither the first nor the last to say it.

Jorge, I do agree with pretty much all you've written and it was well said. Kudos.