151. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188071 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:40 am

Comment #188066 by irate_atheist

I would prefer if you tried to respond to the question rather than its nature.

152. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188069 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:37 am

Comment #188065 by epeeist

Well this is a loaded question too. If I think it's an objective moral wrong, then I might also have to think homosexuality is wrong (if not, please explain why). Hence the need for your input on the matter.

153. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188068 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:35 am

Comment #188060 by hungarianelephant

I have some trouble with the fundamental idea of "consent" being the basis for sexual relations. It is quite reasonable between humans (we cannot force people to have sex) but when applied to animals, it seems to have an automatic ruling. Yet, we do much worse to animals (hunt, slaughter etc.) without their consent and think little of it. This is why using "consent" as an argument not to condone bestiality is weak at best, in my view.

154. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188061 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #188056 by AllanW

Like I said earlier, to the best of my understanding, I did not misrepresent you (so I don't know what to retract). This is why I asked that you restate your position on the matter to clarify it; and I suppose give yourself some peace of mind too.

155. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188057 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #188055 by Peacebeuponme

Thanks for clarifying your position on the matter. I think it's a fair one.

156. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188053 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #188047 by epeeist

Actually I asked the question first (refer Comment #188020 by Appleby).

And I don't have an answer. I'm trying to see if any of you, especially the homosexuals, do.

157. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188045 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:13 am

Comment #188042 by epeeist

I am not aware of anyone here who would condone bestiality.

As to justification - are you claiming that there is some objective moral value that forbids such an act?

Then what is our basis for not condoning it?

158. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188043 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:11 am

Comment #188035 by Peacebeuponme

One example would be unadopted children: I think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt in these circumstances.

And in other circumstances?

159. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188033 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:02 am

Comment #188028 by epeeist

Why don't you use something like adults who consent to sado-masochism, or white women having consensual sex with black men.

Because I think we can all agree (homosexuals and heterosexuals alike) that bestiality should not be condoned. I'm curious if we can justify it, though.

160. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188030 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #188027 by AllanW

Why don't you restate your position on the matter. To the best of my understanding, I did not misrepresent you.

161. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188020 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #187973 by Bonzai

I am simply trying to establish whether or not homosexuals view themselves (and consequently their rights) as somehow different from those who practice bestiality. If so, I would like to know what criteria they use and if these criteria have any basis in science, for one thing. The reason for this is because similar criteria could then perhaps be used to make the distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals. I'm not looking for an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals but I think this line of reasoning and its unfortunate conclusion would be logically consistent. But please, correct me if you think I'm wrong.

162. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188004 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #187995 by Peacebeuponme

I just have to clarify something here. Are you saying homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children because it's their right or because it would reduce the number of unadopted children?

163. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187970 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 5:02 am

Dumb fucks. All of you. I'm outta here.

164. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187969 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 5:01 am

Comment #187967 by Bonzai

This is an illustration of your double standard. So stop insisting that we should all accept gay rights without question when you clearly do not acknowledge the rights of those who practice bestiality.

165. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187968 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:58 am

Comment #187966 by Quetzalcoatl

Homosexuals and I are very different people too.

166. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187964 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:56 am

Comment #187960 by Bonzai

No, I want *you* to tell me why you do not condone bestiality. Is it a "species" thing? And on what scientific evidence is this used to draw the line?

167. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187962 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:53 am

Comment #187959 by Quetzalcoatl

They couldn't give consent in any case. This is why making it a criterion is ridiculous. As long as I'm not harming the animal - we do far worse things to animals anyway without their consent - I see no reason not to condone my fucking it (in the privacy of my own bedroom, no less).

168. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187958 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:48 am

Comment #187953 by Bonzai

You make the case that it is cruelty. I'm busy fucking my cat. Innocent until proven guilty.

169. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187955 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #187952 by Quetzalcoatl

You haven't been keeping up, have you? Looks like I have to explain this again.

The very fact that "consent" is a requirement for sex between *humans* (and this is fair), makes it inapplicable to animals as a basis for inherently forbidding bestiality (animals can't give consent even if they wanted to). So the "consent" argument fails there.

170. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187951 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:39 am

Comment #187949 by AllanW

Stop dodging this:

Comment #187945 by Appleby


Answer it!

171. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187950 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:38 am

And for the slow-of-mind, the whole point of the "status quo" argument is its relevance in establishing on whom lies the onus of making a case toward change (progressive or not). It has nothing to do with the truth value of the status quo itself.

172. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187947 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #187946 by Quetzalcoatl

Hence why it's silly to make consent a criterion for sex with an animal.

173. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187945 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:30 am

Comment #187943 by AllanW

Don't try to cover your ass now. If you do not condone my fucking my cat in the privacy of my own house, I want solid reasons why. Else, I'm free to say I don't condone homosexuality.

Let's get to the nitty-gritty details here. What, exactly, is the difference?

174. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187937 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:22 am

Comment #187932 by mmurray

It *was* raised, but ignored. It's okay when *they* do it, you see.

175. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187936 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #187930 by AllanW

Your comment about the bestiality issue is clear. I've highlighted it before for all to see. If you want to change your position now, feel free to do it. So are you now saying you don't condone me fucking my cat in the privacy of my own house?

Comment #187931 by Bonzai

The status quo.

176. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187928 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:13 am

Comment #187927 by Quetzalcoatl

How many times do I have to remind everyone about the baselessness of the "consent" argument?

177. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187926 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:08 am

Comment #187924 by hungarianelephant

Because like AllanW admitted a while ago (and he was right), there is technically no difference between condoning homosexuality and bestiality. Under the banner of personal freedoms and rights, we have to accept both. But we don't quite accept bestiality, do we? I wanted to get to the bottom of that.

178. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187922 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 4:01 am

Comment #187917 by epeeist

And you should stick to fencing, if you're even any good at that.

179. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187905 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 2:23 am

Comment #187903 by irate_atheist

Another fool trawling through posts making pathetic attempts to undermine me by taking things out of context.

In relation to ADOPTION, you fool!

180. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187899 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 2:14 am

Comment #187898 by Peacebeuponme:

If the central focus of your position are the best interests of the child then all forms of upbringing should be subject to the same scrutiny, surely?

In principle yes but this is hardly the time to digress into another topic.

Your preference then also includes thousands of extra unadopted children.

The ends don't necessarily justify the means. You are only looking at the adoption problem and think that anything is better than the kids remaining unadopted. I'm not sure this reasoning is valid.

181. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187893 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 2:04 am

Comment #187890 by Brian English

The status quo is why atheism is obliged to make its case like our good Professor Dawkins is constantly struggling to do.

182. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187892 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 2:02 am

Comment #187889 by Peacebeuponme

Like I said. Bisexual parents and their parentage of their own biological children is not related to this issue. They are not "strict" gays to begin with. The dynamics of the "family" are likely a bit different. I'm not sure the biological connection between parent and child is as irrelevant as you make it out to be.

You see, it's not even right to start with the premise that (strict) homosexuals *should* or *must* be allowed to adopt. How did we arrive at that judgement? Inalienable human rights? It happens in nature too? Hardly satisfactory proof of anything. I wouldn't just hand an unsuspecting child over to gay foster parents on the basis of that. I wouldn't rule out the possibility altogether either. My preference however, logically rests with the status quo (i.e. heterosexuals).

183. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187888 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 1:35 am

Comment #187884 by Peacebeuponme

First of all, the status quo should include what is going on worldwide. In that, I think the "battle" is still raging (or maybe already lost for gays) unless you assume the default moral superiority of a few countries over all the others.

And to answer your question, the issue is *adoption* by homosexuals. Additionally, if they have also had straight relationships, then they are probably bisexual to a degree and that's another issue. Obviously, we are not also going to tear the biological children of these people away from their parents.

The idea that has yet to be proven satisfactorily is that there are no differences of ill-consequence due to (strictly) homosexual adoption compared to heterosexual adoption. This is why my preference is toward the latter and I am not ashamed of it. I don't consider it homophobia or bigotry either.

184. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187867 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Comment #187864 by Cartomancer:

Why is the status quo so important? Why is what we have now to be valued over the improvements we may well be able to implement?

This is rather presumptuous. Why do you assume homosexual adoption is an improvement of some kind? And the status quo is simply the way things are which is a good criterion to decide where the onus for convincing evidence that advocates change lies.

We now have gay adoption and there have been no negative consequences at all. In fact, it is now the status quo and to repeal it would be to change things again, so stop talking about it as if it were only a theoretical possibility rather than an established and well-evidenced fact of modern life

Did you factor in the rest of the world in determining this new status quo or do you assume certain countries to be morally superior by default?

Nevertheless the origins of the conditions are immaterial - concensual heterosexual sex does not harm anyone, whereas bestiality routinely does. There is also the consent issue, and more importantly the presence of loving, mutually reciprocated emotional bonds can be detected in heterosexual people, which is not the case with zoophiles

Where is the evidence that bestiality (are we talking about any and all kinds of animals here) routinely harms people? And, the issue of consent is also questionable. You claim to have read this whole thread but if you did then you would have read my arguments against this baseless acceptance of "consent" as being equally applicable to animals especially in light of the fact that we do not seek their consent to slaughter them (e.g. chickens, cows).

I consider my sexual behaviour to be harmless to others, whereas that of a zoophile is not, but that's the only value judgement I feel entitled to make - and it's not really a value judgement so much as an evidenced conclusion. Do you as a heterosexual think that your behaviour is "superior" to that of a homosexual or a zoophile, and if so what do you mean by this term?

Morally superior is what I meant. This harmfulness issue of bestiality (all animals?) has yet to be proven so I cannot accept it. And I gather you think you are morally superior to those who practice it. Let's assume for a minute it has not been proven that sex with any and all kinds of animals is harmful. Do you still feel the same moral superiority? If so, please explain why.

That's why those factors were chosen for study. Funnily enough research into factors irrelevant to a question rarely takes place

Not necessarily. What is the rationale they used in determining (in advance, no less) what is relevant and what isn't?

Again, why should deviation from the mean (for it is not the status quo, as if that term had a precise meaning in this context) have any relevance to whether a behaviour is deemed acceptable or not?

I am not talking about the mean. I'm talking about status quo as in the time when homosexual parenting was officially unheard of (for the sake of argument because I still don't think it's the status quo now; not worldwide, at least).

Furthermore, yes you can be sure. You can be as sure of this as you can that there is no god and evolution is a fact. There is masses of evidence out there and more is cropping up all the time - all of it saying the same thing. It is only through prejudice or willful ignorance that you can ignore the facts. All the science points in this direction, which is why gay adoption is now legal and thriving - wake up and smell the coffee!

Any issue pertaining to morality where ALL the science supposedly points in just one direction is questionable to me.

Do they really think that their heterosexuality is completely immaterial in terms of effects on the adopted child?>

It's the status quo. The question does not arise. If one day homosexual adoptions become routine (worldwide, like heterosexual adoptions are) and people who practice bestiality start demanding the right to adopt (and are denied), would it be fair for them to start questioning heterosexual and homosexual adoptions as an argument? Additionally, looking for flaws in heterosexual adoption does not prove the validity of homosexual adoption. Not to mention that the latter is not the status quo (worldwide, not just in some countries) and the onus is on *its* proponents to make a good case.

This is palpable rubbish as even the most cursory glance at the statistics will show. There have ALWAYS been more children available for adoption and fostering than people willing to take them on, and the discrepancy is only widening.

So by your logic, anyone who is willing to adopt should be allowed? Just don't look at sexual orientation? Begging the question!

Of course I don't believe that straight people only want to repeal gay adoption laws because it massages their egos, but to make such a claim is equally as ridiculous as claiming that gay people only want to adopt because it massages theirs.

I never said it was the only reason. I wanted to know if it played a part. And you still haven't answered.

You are uncritically assuming that one side needs to examine its position while the other side does not

No. The side that is not the status quo needs to examine its position and make a good case. Examining the status quo is a whole other debate. And once again, it does not make the case for homosexuality by simply questioning heterosexuality. This is just bad science. It's almost religious.

And I put that right back to you and ask whether you're willing to accept the conclusions of the evidence, wherever they lead, rather than treating your oft-mentioned personal dislikes as if they had any objective validity?

The evidence, in my view, is inconclusive. This is why my preference is still to heterosexual adoptions. Are you suggesting I should not even have this preference? If so, what do you have to support this claim? And please, don't resort to simply turning the question back on heterosexuals. It answers nothing. Make *your* case. And my likes and dislikes are irrelevant to the issue. I didn't mention them in my posts to you, by the way. So there's no need to bring them up as an argument. I would have hoped, that you treated my arguments objectively without having preconceptions about me.

Exactly. We cannot afford to deny vulnerable children the loving parents they deserve based on unevidenced prejudice and conservative inertia. The stakes are far too high to countenance something inhumane like that...

Being "loving parents" is not all there is to adopting kids. And even that has yet to be proven with regard to homosexuals in a sense that justifies their equal right to adoption. Heterosexuals can also be "loving parents" which is why everything else being equal, my preference still lies with them. You may call this homophobia or bigotry. I call it caution. And where kids are involved, I think we should be cautious.

185. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187852 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Comment #187840 by Cartomancer

Why do you assume that heterosexuals are automatically qualified to be parents while homosexuals are not?

Because this is the status quo. Why should we assume something is wrong with (natural) heterosexual parenting just because things that are natural are not necessarily right? Should we do so just to accommodate the possibility of homosexual parenting? Can this be extended to say, people who practice bestiality? Are they also equally fit to be parents until proven otherwise? If not, why not? What exactly is your criteria there? I think, like homosexuals, a case for them needs to be made first because it is a deviation from the status quo. Not because homosexuals are equal to those who practice bestiality. Do you as a homosexual, by the way, think you are superior in some way to those who practice bestiality?

And as has been brought up before, the evidence is there that gay people make just as good parents as straight ones. In fact the evidence shows that they actually make slightly better parents, because in order to adopt children they have to prove their devotion, whereas heterosexuals can just have children in an entirely unregulated fashion.

But they are only "just as good" or "better" based on certain criteria and it does not rule out the possibility (however negligible you think it is) that this deviation from the status quo has long or short-term ill side-effects. My position was that given I can't be sure and that the lives of children are at stake, I'd rather not expose them to the possible risk and go with the tried-and-tested parenting of heterosexuals (and not because it's "natural", as explained above).

I would, however, say that parenting instincts are genetic to a great degree. Homosexuals possess them just as much as heterosexuals do. Why do straight people want to have and raise children? Because they have a genetic drive to do so. Homosexuals have just the same drives, and just the same care and love to give their children. To assume that there is some political statement inherent in it is deeply patronising.

A reasonable point. However, their consciousness should enable them to decide against natural drives, if preferable or necessary. Do they really think that their homosexuality is completely immaterial in terms of effects on the adopted child? Do they factor in what the child (who lets say is heterosexual) might want or prefer? This is why I questioned the intention of homosexual adoptions. It seems to be more about the interest and drive of the parents than what would be preferable or best for the child. Once again, if you're going to pass the onus onto me and insist I assume there is no such difference or ill effect by default (thereby risking the children if there turns out to be), it's simply a risk I'd rather not take. With heterosexual parents, the uncertainties of homosexual parenting are not there. What's there to lose? A few more unadopted children or the rights of gays? And if this is about the former, do you really think gay adoption is the only answer? Gay adoption might in fact, deprive many straight parents from adopting the children of their dreams. And let's not pretend parents aren't picky about the kids they adopt (gays included).

We might as well assume that heterosexuals are automatically against gay adoption in order to oppress homosexuals and massage their own egos - you too are just as vulnerable to prejudice and it is just as incumbent on you to examine your motives.

This sounds a lot like when some black people cry "discrimination!" at being denied certain things in the hope that others will be intimidated into giving it to them. If you examine my arguments objectively, you might begin to see that it's not necessarily homophobia talking but rather a reasonable demand for convincing evidence given the issue and what is at stake (the lives of children). If you then ask me to consider that all heterosexual parents with adopted children are also a risk, I think that once again is being disingenuous.

Why should the heterosexual majority automatically be assumed to be the moral arbiters in our society, with minority groups having to forcibly change their minds or else submit to the unexamined will of the mob?>

It's really not about moral superiority of heterosexuals but I can understand why many people seem to think it is. It's simply about the proposition of a change to the status quo. When you propose something radical or new, I think it is fair to substantiate it rather than appeal for it to be accepted by default. Homosexuals have made some good arguments about their fitness as parents (most can certainly afford, money-wise, to raise a child), but there are still many issues to be sorted out before children (we are talking about children here) are routinely handed over to them for adoption. To me, it's something different and requires further investigation before I change my stance from "preferably heterosexual" to "indifferent".

What's your point? We don't make our decisions based on the facts we can dream up off the top of our heads, we make them based on the facts we gather through science and reason>

My point is, can you accept them in principle? This will prepare you for if and when it happens (unless you think it won't or is much too unlikely - and then I would ask why you think that). Saying "I'll cross that bridge when I get there" is not good enough. You need to be clear about the acceptance of having to cross that bridge if need be. Why? Because this says a lot about what kind of person you really are. Nothing personal, by the way. I am just trying to articulate what I mean.

And even if there is difference, why is that a basis for discrimination? It would have to be an extreme and significantly dangerous difference - so dangerous that it would almost certainly be blatantly apparent already

I disagree. Not where children are involved. Voting etc., fine. Not kids.

186. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187828 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Comment #187815 by Cartomancer

Talk about straw men. I'm actually glad to hear the viewpoint of a homosexual. Before I continue, I would ask that you don't read the rest of this post with the preconception that I'm a homophobe or bigot. It tends to skew one's objectivity.

The problem, I think, with homosexuals like you is that you have become too complacent in the fact that you should not be discriminated (I don't like this word but am forced to use it) against under any circumstances despite the obvious fact that you are different from heterosexuals. Now don't read too deeply into this and assume I think you are necessarily inferior in every way (or even some ways). There are homosexuals I actually envy.

All it means is that when you claim to be equal to heterosexuals (in say the right to adopt children), the onus is still on you to convince us why. To say that *we* (i.e. heterosexuals) must first prove you are not fit for adopting children on the grounds of your homosexuality is being disingenuous. And, I wonder, do you really have the welfare of the child in mind as a top priority over the interests of exercising your "right" to adopt it? And if not, just how much of the latter reason plays into your intention of adopting said child? This is a question, by the way, not an accusation.

We have reached a stage in the West where it is apparently much too offensive for these questions to be even asked. Much like religion, I suspect some homosexuals (perhaps like you) are hoping for the day when homosexuals and all their "rights" become incontestable. Even in principle, I think this is not a good attitude. And I don't assume the rights of heterosexuals to be incontestable. You, as homosexual, are free to contest any of them and demand we provide evidence to substantiate said rights when it is a deviation from the status quo.

Finally, I wonder if you would have the fortitude to accept some forms of discrimination IF perhaps, it could be demonstrated (scientifically, of course) that you are unfit for certain responsibilities. Not that I think the onus is on heterosexuals in that regard as I've explained above. But let's say someone had the courage to investigate such a thing. Could you and would you then accept it? I am the sort of person who, if I was gay, would be willing to accept such a thing because of my commitment to the truth. I realize that the sword swings both ways and need not conform to my personal desires. This is what I think being a scientist is primarily about.

187. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187731 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Well, I'd love to continue this pointless discussion with you blockheads but I'd rather have (vaginal) sex with my girlfriend now. You understand...

188. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187725 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Comment #187723 by Elli

I'm going to have to ignore you now, honey. Oops... am I now a misogynist????

189. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187722 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #187717 by Elli

I didn't use the word "disqualifies" and if I didn't know better, I would think you were intentionally trying to misrepresent me. And the reason has already been explained numerous times.

190. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187718 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Comment #187713 by Elli

I'm afraid you still don't understand my position on the matter.

191. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187716 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Comment #187714 by kaiserkriss

Wow, you must be a speed reader.

192. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187710 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Comment #187707 by Elli

I never said it disqualifies them. Whose posts have you been reading?

193. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187709 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #187706 by kaiserkriss

I'm sorry, but I don't have time for another idiot with preconceived notions about me.

194. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187704 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Comment #187693 by Elli

Please, let's not make any more assumptions about what I said or think. Read

Comment #187688 by Appleby

And you can confirm it by checking my previous posts. Ignore the bullshit spewed by others.

195. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187700 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Comment #187695 by Bonzai

You must have missed Comment #187688 by Appleby. Not surprising. Really, it isn't given the preconceptions everyone here seems to have about me.

196. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187698 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Comment #187691 by epeeist

As I recall, you asked me to "disprove" an hypothesis, which is just silly.

197. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187696 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Comment #187690 by Mitchell Gilks

I should never have continued on the premise that it was equal to begin with. So, you prove that it's equal first. After all, homosexual adoption is the deviation from the status quo. The onus is rightfully on you.

198. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187688 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Comment #187685 by Peacebeuponme

All I ever said was that I would prefer not to take the risk where the lives of children are involved. All this other stuff is your own bullshit.

199. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187686 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Comment #187682 by Mitchell Gilks

What's the matter? Can't prove that homosexual parenting is equal to hetereosexual parenting? Or am I supposed to assume it is and prove otherwise? While I'm at it, am I also supposed to assume that there are pink elephants on Mars until proven otherwise?

200. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187683 by Appleby on June 2, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Comment #187680 by epeeist

By all means, go ahead.