Nothing supernatural about the western suburbs of Melbourne

[Aractus]

Those people have valuable qualifications with real world applications or have to demonstrate a track record of trustworthiness to justify their being trusted with the care of children. What's more, they will go to jail if they are caught betraying the trusts afforded to them.
Clergy get trusted because they wear clerical outfits, but that should not be the case and I am doing my bit to bring that mis-application of trust to an end.

Children are vulnerable. Anyone can take advantage of them given the opportunity. The church has a responsibility to monitor and reduce the risk, which we (Anglicans) do. Frankly most of it is pure bureaucracy, but then children should never be intentionally put in harm's way.

---

Because I'm not the one making the positive claim, you are. You have the burden of evidence. You want me to take your claim seriously, you stump up the evidence. Otherwise, your unsupported claim gets the respect it warrants, which is none.

If you choose to be uninformed that's your problem. If it's done in the interests of the children then frankly it doesn't matter who does it. It could be an Islamic group doing it for all I care. And FYI I hate Islam about as much as anyone hates it. That doesn't mean I would discriminate against them and claim they can't run programs that are in the interests of children or in the interests of the community.

What a load of dominionist bullshit. You have no right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their body. You are a member of a religion, not a government health regulator, and even then, I can't find ethical space for them to tell people what they can and can't do to themselves.

Where did I say that I have that right? What I said is that the government has that right, and they rightly exercise it.

People can drink themselves to death and I can't tell them not to. I can encourage them not to, I can try to help improve their situation so that they might not want to, but if they are determined to follow that path, there is no justification I can use to prevent them from doing so. You are again conflating privileges and rights. Where historically your church has been privileged to interfere in the business of others, it is not a right and you cannot justify that interference. I know you try, because it is in the church's interest to hold that level of influence in the lives of community members, but that does not make it right.

DON'T MAKE A STRAW MAN! I didn't say that the Church has or should have that right. If I was a fat lazy slob then it would be totally hypocritical of me to tell others with an unhealthy lifestyle to shape up, but I'm not a fat lazy slob so I have no problem with giving my 2c, especially when others often have strong feelings against things they don't like (smoking for instance). People make their own choices, if they want to take drugs and eat to obesity that's their choice to make.

If you want to ban homosexuality because of it's health ramifications, you should really be targeting anal sex. But you don't. You ignore the heterosexual couples who have anal sex and only concentrate on the gay couples. Can you offer any explanation other than biblical mandate for this discriminatory behaviour?

Another straw man? Why should I target penetrative anal sex? Because it spreads STI's faster? I don't think it should be a we-vs-them situation. All I'm saying is that for Christians the homosexual lifestyle as well as promiscuous lifestyle or living as a couple out of wedlock is sinful. The targets are Christians not non-Christians. The targets shouldn't be non-Christians. I don't want to ban homosexuality, you're putting words into my mouth.

If you want to play the naturalness card, you fail again. Natural is not automatically good. Natural for humans is a modal age of death of around thirty-five and forty percent infant mortality. If you want to ban homosexuality, ban vaccinations and flushing toilets while you're at it, so everyone can be nice and natural.

STOP WITH THE STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS! I never said "it isn't natural". Homosexuality is a type of sexuality, somewhat distinct from heterosexuality. Paedophilia is also a real sexuality, and there are others, and they overlap with each other. And some people are asexual (don't have a dominant sexuality at all). Just because you're "born that way" doesn't mean its a defining aspect of who you are and that you should centre your identity and your lifestyle around it.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Those people have valuable qualifications with real world applications or have to demonstrate a track record of trustworthiness to justify their being trusted with the care of children. What's more, they will go to jail if they are caught betraying the trusts afforded to them.
Clergy get trusted because they wear clerical outfits, but that should not be the case and I am doing my bit to bring that mis-application of trust to an end.

Children are vulnerable. Anyone can take advantage of them given the opportunity. The church has a responsibility to monitor and reduce the risk, which we (Anglicans) do. Frankly most of it is pure bureaucracy, but then children should never be intentionally put in harm's way.

---

Because I'm not the one making the positive claim, you are. You have the burden of evidence. You want me to take your claim seriously, you stump up the evidence. Otherwise, your unsupported claim gets the respect it warrants, which is none.

If you choose to be uninformed that's your problem. If it's done in the interests of the children then frankly it doesn't matter who does it. It could be an Islamic group doing it for all I care. And FYI I hate Islam about as much as anyone hates it. That doesn't mean I would discriminate against them and claim they can't run programs that are in the interests of children or in the interests of the community.

What a load of dominionist bullshit. You have no right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their body. You are a member of a religion, not a government health regulator, and even then, I can't find ethical space for them to tell people what they can and can't do to themselves.

Where did I say that I have that right? What I said is that the government has that right, and they rightly exercise it.

People can drink themselves to death and I can't tell them not to. I can encourage them not to, I can try to help improve their situation so that they might not want to, but if they are determined to follow that path, there is no justification I can use to prevent them from doing so. You are again conflating privileges and rights. Where historically your church has been privileged to interfere in the business of others, it is not a right and you cannot justify that interference. I know you try, because it is in the church's interest to hold that level of influence in the lives of community members, but that does not make it right.

DON'T MAKE A STRAW MAN! I didn't say that the Church has or should have that right. If I was a fat lazy slob then it would be totally hypocritical of me to tell others with an unhealthy lifestyle to shape up, but I'm not a fat lazy slob so I have no problem with giving my 2c, especially when others often have strong feelings against things they don't like (smoking for instance). People make their own choices, if they want to take drugs and eat to obesity that's their choice to make.

If you want to ban homosexuality because of it's health ramifications, you should really be targeting anal sex. But you don't. You ignore the heterosexual couples who have anal sex and only concentrate on the gay couples. Can you offer any explanation other than biblical mandate for this discriminatory behaviour?

Another straw man? Why should I target penetrative anal sex? Because it spreads STI's faster? I don't think it should be a we-vs-them situation. All I'm saying is that for Christians the homosexual lifestyle as well as promiscuous lifestyle or living as a couple out of wedlock is sinful. The targets are Christians not non-Christians. The targets shouldn't be non-Christians. I don't want to ban homosexuality, you're putting words into my mouth.

If you want to play the naturalness card, you fail again. Natural is not automatically good. Natural for humans is a modal age of death of around thirty-five and forty percent infant mortality. If you want to ban homosexuality, ban vaccinations and flushing toilets while you're at it, so everyone can be nice and natural.

STOP WITH THE STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS! I never said "it isn't natural". Homosexuality is a type of sexuality, somewhat distinct from heterosexuality. Paedophilia is also a real sexuality, and there are others, and they overlap with each other. And some people are asexual (don't have a dominant sexuality at all). Just because you're "born that way" doesn't mean its a defining aspect of who you are and that you should centre your identity and your lifestyle around it.

So in short, you agree that your church has no right or reason to get involved in the lives of people outside of that church. I'm glad we got that cleared up so you can now get on with leaving me alone.
And get your hand out of my pocket while you're at it.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I hate Islam about as much as anyone hates it.

Feel that christian love and tolerance flowing over you...