SD on 25/1/2007 at 14:40
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297107.stm) This is probably relevant to the discussion at hand. It looks as though Tony Blair might argue for Catholic adoption agencies to be able to "opt out" from our impending laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals.
Thankfully, it appears he's mightily outnumbered, even in his own cabinet, so the law will probably pass without any special exemptions. But this is the concern among many of us, when religions seek to exempt themselves from rules that benefit and progress society, and when they use millennia-old claptrap to justify that stance.
SubJeff on 25/1/2007 at 14:54
Yes, it does look like that StD. But where does one stop? Where is the line between clap-trap and respecting someone else's belief? This is a difficult one, especially as we don't know what effect adoption by gay couples will have on children so we can't really classify this as "benefiting society". I understand your point but I think that these cases are never as clear cut as you have just made out.
SD on 25/1/2007 at 15:01
I think in this case, it is pretty clear cut. We're extending to gay people the same laws that already apply to discrimination against people on the basis of age, race, gender, disability and (irony alert) religion.
Also, gay people have adopted children for centuries, seemingly without detriment to society, so put that strawman away before it does any damage. The law isn't about allowing gay people to adopt, because they already can.
SubJeff on 25/1/2007 at 15:09
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Also, gay people have adopted children for centuries,
Well I don't know when the law changed to stop it (as in pre-90s) but this certainly wasn't true in the 90s. Not legally in the UK anyway.
Quote:
seemingly without detriment to society
Has there been any research on this?
And as to the term "discrimination" - it's so loaded as to be meaningless now. I certainly think there are certain groups that should not be allowed to adopt on the basis that it wouldn't be practical for them. Is that discriminating? Yes it is, but not in the way that you mean.
Uncia on 25/1/2007 at 15:28
Quote Posted by fett
Can't have Israel wiping itself out through infant sacrifice if Messiah is going to be born from them can we now?
...
(...)they're really only showing how stupid
they are because even young christians know that these things had narrrow and time sensitive application.
I think the general complaint is that whether or not something is taken as obsolete or as still applicable tends to very much be a case of what benefits the religious' argument at the time. To me, both mixing cloth and frowning on homosexuality sound equally obsolete, but not to a lot (most?) of believers in the US.
the_grip on 25/1/2007 at 15:30
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297107.stm) This is probably relevant to the discussion at hand. It looks as though Tony Blair might argue for Catholic adoption agencies to be able to "opt out" from our impending laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals.
Thankfully, it appears he's mightily outnumbered, even in his own cabinet, so the law will probably pass without any special exemptions. But this is the concern among many of us, when religions seek to exempt themselves from rules that benefit and progress society, and when they use millennia-old claptrap to justify that stance.
i'm sorry, but i find it ludicrous to force someone to violate peaceful religious convictions and their conscience when they are not limiting the supposedly discriminated group from their actions. In other words: there are other adoption agencies available, these are private organizations, and no harm is done as a result of their position. You might find it "progressive" to force them to go against their own conscience, violating religious freedom in the process, and their views "claptrap", but that is opinion, not objective fact.
Would you find it objectionable if a law was passed requiring Planned Parenthood or the like to contribute a percentage of their income to pro-life efforts? The same philosophical principle applies.
And, for the record, i have no problem with gay adoption. In my mind, there are tons of children out there who need homes, and some home is generally better than no home. However, i don't think we have to violate the rights of religious freedom, common decency, and respect to do so. Besides, these agencies would close or relocate out of England anyways, so, if anything, you would be doing more harm than good (i.e. there would be less places for orphaned children to be cared for).
At the rate the UK is going, the children of the closed orphanages would probably be euthanized due to their lack of "quality of life" (okay, that's a little pro-life stab not meant to be taken seriously).
EDIT: i would also add that you are trading "discrimination" for "discrimination". In other words, instead of having gay people "discriminated" against, you "discriminate" against a religious organization. i personally don't find it discrimination to allow them to opt-out of gay adoptions - that is their right as a private institution.
the_grip on 25/1/2007 at 15:53
Quote Posted by fett
Spot on Nicker. This IS the danger, (though I don't think it's as urgent as Dawkins seems to). As America becomes more of a melting pot, lets hope more people start asking the question in your next to last paragraph there.
Even when I was a christian, I wholeheartedly embraced this approach to religion as it applied to society. I took a lot of flak because, I think it's ridiculous to impose my beliefs on other people (which btw is not what the NT instructs believers to do EVAR). Consider this - if christians interacted with society as honest politicians, good filmmakers, prolific writers and musicians, and objective scientists, I suspect they would have far more impact on the world at large than they do by lobbying to legislate the christian view of morality, boycotting Disneyworld, or trying to cram creationism into biology curriculum... [SNIP] If the church would feed the poor, care for the sick, and shut the hell up about politics, they would have a lot more credibility IMO. I was a christian, but also an American which means I may not agree with how you live or what you say, but I should be willing to defend your right to do or say it (Voltiare...I think?). Christians on the whole don't get that. They're so caught up in the fist-waving, they haven't looked around and realized it's not 1953 in the U.S. anymore.
fett, as a Christian, i agree wholeheartedly. i do disagree, however that Christians "on the whole" don't get it. The problem is that there are some very outspoken Christians who don't get it - those of us that do aren't trying to enforce stupid ideas by mandating them through legislation like "Intelligent Design", demanding that "Under God" stay in the pledge of allegience, and all the other fluff that, at the end of the day, has nothing to do with the Christian faith and everything to do with people trying to legislate against (surprise surprise) people's conscience.
The only "flagship" issue i find valid to promote legislation for is the pro-life movement, but that really doesn't have much to do with religion or legislation of conscience. All human life, hispanic, black, white, asian, or otherwise, from fertilized egg to the elderly, from rich man to homeless, or what have you, deserves equally dignity and protection, and i'd feel that way Christian or otherwise.
Chimpy Chompy on 25/1/2007 at 16:20
Unless we want to push for 40 pages, can I humbly request we all ignore that last paragraph...
Matthew on 25/1/2007 at 16:32
It'd be like some kind of super-thread multi-ball.
the_grip on 25/1/2007 at 16:36
Sorry - not trying to beat a dead horse :). i only meant to tie it in as a related issue, but not something i'm hoping to open up a tangent on.
(although i'm curious why a 40 page thread would be a bad thing?)
