Same-Sex Adoption

In response to my "opponent," CelestialKnight's last argument: There is no such thing as "demonic possession," but if there were such a thing, it would have nothing whatever to do with a same-sex adoption debate. You're just being ridiculous. However, I am inclined to give the comment made by Donjuandebater1212 regarding the definition of "natural" a modicum of more consideration. Firstly, you are wondering what "teachings I follow" due to my silence regarding Judeo-Christian Theology and my ostensible rejection of scientific studies. The claim that I don't believe in what science says was meant as a joke; of course I do. Also, the quote I gave by Colbert's correspondent--"Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it natural"--was also meant as a joke. The only difference I can see between the two jokes is the fact that my joke was meant to draw attention to the silliness of rejecting science's ability to lead to knowledge about nature, and the Television show's joke was meant to reveal the hollowness of the idea that something that happens in nature can be considered "unnatural". Donjuandebater1212 claims that I am confusing two disconnected definitions of the term "natural" in the sense that if you claim that two male penguins who end up life-mates with one another, this is not the same as when you find two female humans mating for life--for example. The reason for this, according to Donjuan is that in the former instance, there is no way to definitively prove that the penguins recognize their relationship as "gay" in the sense that we understand it as reflective humans, and that in the latter case, it is actually an instance of "human behavior based on historical reference". "It is not natural," argues Donjuan, "for humans who have the ability to recognize and understand the full meaning of the choices they make, to become homosexuals out of natural causes or even to convert to that lifestyle". It seems like what Donjuan is saying here is that penguins can find themselves naturally attracted to mates of the same sex, but humans cannot do so because they are aware that two mates of the same sex are unnatural. If you think about it another way, you can see the logical flaw: because humans have the ability to understand societal conventions and historical reference, they cannot practice certain sexual and pair-bonding rituals which occur in nature, because HUMANS are unnatural due to ipso facto this ability. If this argument is true, then ALL sexual and loving relationships between humans are considered unnatural and should be shunned. I'm not quite sure this is what you had in mind. The last part of Donjuan's argument I find to be the most problematic and disturbing, however. Looking closely and paraphrasing, the argument goes as follows: "Although there are lots of good gays out there, there are also bad ones, and so gay people can't call the shots with their moral righteousness on the strait [sic] community. But here in the USA (land of the free) where religion is awesome and homosexuality is looked down on (discriminated against), "the people who descended from [America's] founders adopted such views" and therefore those views are right." Right? Wrong. Just because religion is a central force in the United States and because Christian teachings and theology have a ubiquitous and powerful presence in policy-making and social control DOES NOT mean that the "descendents" of intolerant and discriminatory views of non-heterosexual people are morally right. In other words, just because it's the dominant view or because it is the traditionally recognized view, doesn't mean it doesn't have to change. Also, you should work on spelling, syntax, punctuation and sentence formation.