Quote:
Originally Posted by rblackbird
Then again, humans breed dogs, calling intelligent design into the picture.
To this I agree.
Were they going to teach their child to hate homosexuals, or teach the child that homosexuality is incorrect? There's a difference. Personally, I have friends who are homosexual, but I don't hate them, though I still believe they are incorrect.
|
Basically, the magistrate or whatever public official is in charge asked them if they would love their child the same if that child grew up to be a homosexual, and they said no.
----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by rblackbird
Then again, humans breed dogs, calling intelligent design into the picture.
|
At the risk of turning this into a debate about the validity of evolution...
That's a very valid counterpoint to that specific example, but you didn't address the issue of Sickle-Cell, which does not point to intelligent design. Darwin's key example was the various subspecies of finch that could be found in the archipelago known as the "Galapagos Islands." These are all finches, all of them...all come from the same species, and yet the birds on different islands developed different types of beaks to help them eat the various forms of seeds and nuts found throughout the islands. Some birds live on islands where they have hard-shelled nuts, so they've developed beaks which allow them to smash the shells. Others need longer, more tweezer-shaped beaks to allow them to crack seeds and get to the food inside. This is what "natural selection" is. The development of a trait across generations. Now, it's also fair to consider that mankind has effectively stopped the progress of natural selection, because we've started doing all the selecting ourselves. The reason I stress this is that a good majority of people disagree with evolution because they THINK the entire argument hinges on "man came from monkey" which even science disagrees with considering the fossil evidence. There are about four dozen species along the evolutionary chain spanning hundreds of millennia which separate us from whatever higher primate may have originally begun the chain.
That's where I'll end that. I'll allow for response, but any further discussion on evolution should probably have it's own thread. I'm not trying to silence dissent, but we're probably creeping very quickly towards being irrelevant to the point of this particular thread, which is home-schooling. I'll be perfectly content to discuss this issue, just not in here.
The thing about the UK court decision: It doesn't actually matter which their answer was. As a parent, you don't GET to decide your child's life past a certain point, and if you're going to treat your child differently because they're homosexual, then you can't actually logically think that you can be handed a child, who is not your blood, and be trusted by the agency involved to care for that child unconditionally, because you've already stated that your love is conditional on them turning out a certain way.