From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:xZpxh.68671$qO4.23146@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...   
   > ROBBIE wrote:   
   >> ...you then impute and insinuate things like: 'tell them to their faces   
   >> that their households are   
   >> aberrant and devoid of family feeling'.   
   >   
   > I took your phrase, "like poodles," to mean "like trivial accessories."   
   > No?   
      
   Some of them will want kids as accessories, yes; but not all. The real issue   
   here is whether adoption is a universal right and whether the new law in   
   Britain should steamroller over people's consciences and morality.   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>> I do know two girls who love their living mother and mourn their other   
   >>> mother, who they lost to cancer last summer. They are not an   
   >>> abstraction. Nobody has the right to tell them their family is not real.   
   >>   
   >> Their arrangment is real, obviously; however, it is not normal and never   
   >> will be. I know, I know, you'll burn the dictionary. You can burn books   
   >> but not the truth - something you totalitarians never learn.   
   >   
   > You claim a right to declare who is normal and who is abnormal   
      
   I do. And so do you. I have a right to observe and comment on what is normal   
   as per definition number one OED of 'normal'. Go and look it up. Homosexuals   
   and homosexuals bringing up other people's children is not normal. It may or   
   may not be harmful. Some homosexual parents will be very good and others not   
   so good. That isn't the issue we're speaking of. YOU WANT IT TO BE THE   
   ISSUE, so you can avoid any other nuances - like the big one of: who gave   
   you and your fellow comrades on the social democratic left the right to   
   declare, unequivocally, your new morality? What's the provenance for it?   
   What are the credentials? Why should your side of the argument blithely   
   decide that you have absolute righteousness in this matter and for good   
   measure start discriminating against people, people who happen to disagree   
   with you?   
      
   , and to   
   > determine which households should be allowed to form. You claim a right to   
   > control the most personal sides of other people's business.   
      
   Ahem, I think that exactly what the democratic socialist government in the   
   UK is doing.   
      
      
    Then you   
   > call people who make the case for freedom of association "totalitarian."   
      
   Matters have become totalitarian when you are not allowed to disagree in   
   these matters and you are discriminated against for doing so.   
      
      
   >   
   > I'll add one more thing: the adoptive daughters of that family are   
   > Chinese. Do you know what happens to unwanted girls in China? I know a   
   > woman in San Francisco who was born an unwanted girl in China. Her mother   
   > walked down the street offering the baby to any taker. Fortunately, a kind   
   > lady with grown children of her own accepted the baby and raised her. It   
   > could easily have been otherwise.   
   >   
   > /M   
      
   As I said, it is the assumption of a duty, not a universal right.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)