Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sexuality, like skin colour, is very close to a person. Hence why I consider anti-homosexuality almost as bad as racism.

[leo-rcc]

Well, as I am not an anarchist and have no issues with the government actually putting forth some effort to protect protected classes, I am perfectly fine with you feeling that way.

So what is the rofl in aid of?

[Dotard]

My opinion of equality is just fine for this discussion. And it's more worthy than your weak comparison of child rearing & sexual preference.

I take that as a 'yes'?

[Jaysyn]

My opinion of equality is just fine for this discussion. And it's more worthy than your weak comparison of child rearing & sexual preference.

I take that as a 'yes'?

You can take it in any way you like. It won't make your position any more defensible.

[Skipper]

I guess I hold the view that something that isn't a choice that also has historically been abused in a society, such as homosexuality should be protected more so by a society and government. I'm not saying we should be bubble-wrapping gay people from abuse but if we get the opportunity to stop someone's bullshit, and bigoted views being spread to a new generation then we should. That way we may actually be able to wipe out homophobia (and any other form of intolerance), instead of pandering to ideals of protecting everyone's opinions, despite them opinions being a complete negative to the wider population.

So tell me (because I'm interested now), do you stand up for paedophiles rights? After all, paedophiles has historically been abused in society, and paedophilia isn't considered a "choice" by medical professionals studying the field. So, would you support a bill that protected paedophiles from abuse under a discrimination act, given that paedophilia is as much of a choice as homosexuality?

Don't be stupid. Paedophiles have victims. There is no victim in a gay couple. When people hold views or do things that effect nobody else other than themselves or another consenting adult there is no reason we should allow others to spread views that what they are doing is somehow wrong or unacceptable. Thats what this couple would likely have done.

And the fact you would allow racists and nazis to adopt just to protect this bullshit ideal of everyone's views being defended is insane. Should paedophiles be able to adopt if they protect that child? There has to be point where the people who deal with adoption see signs that perhaps the couple wanting to adopt isn't suitable to have the privilege of adoption. When a couple display fundamental religious beliefs, that's a good sign to me, in the same way that if a couple looking to adopt revealed they are white supremacists or rapists.

---

I guess I hold the view that something that isn't a choice that also has historically been abused in a society, such as homosexuality should be protected more so by a society and government. I'm not saying we should be bubble-wrapping gay people from abuse but if we get the opportunity to stop someone's bullshit, and bigoted views being spread to a new generation then we should. That way we may actually be able to wipe out homophobia (and any other form of intolerance), instead of pandering to ideals of protecting everyone's opinions, despite them opinions being a complete negative to the wider population.

I guess I hold the view that something that isn't a choice that also has historically been abused in a society, such as atheism should be protected more so by a society and government. I'm not saying we should be bubble-wrapping atheists people from abuse but if we get the opportunity to stop someone's bullshit, and bigoted views being spread to a new generation then we should. That way we may actually be able to wipe out atheism (and any other form of intolerance), instead of pandering to ideals of protecting everyone's opinions, despite them opinions being a complete negative to the wider population.


See what I did there?

Yea, you fucked up an analogy. I'm suggesting wiping out homophobia (the stance that two adults of the same gender who do nothing to hurt anyone are doings something wrong simply by being in love) by protecting homosexuals when the bigotry appears in our society. In your attempt at mocking that you suggest wiping out Atheism by protecting Atheism (HUH?!?!?). So yea, you fucked it up. But I see where you are going, however Atheism is not against anything else anyone is doing, homophobia is, it's against a group of people who do nothing that effects anyone else other than themselves. Nice try regardless.

Also it's worth thinking about what happens if a gay child is up for adoption or in need of fostering. If we let this couple foster, do we send gay children to them? Or do we tell the gay child they will have to wait because they are gay. If it's the former we have a couple who wouldn't look after the child properly and if it's the latter we have a child who is being punished and missing out on adoption for the fact they are gay. Now Adrian, take the theoretical racist couple or Nazis we discussed and ask what do we do when a Jewish or black child needs adoption. Do they get sent to these families who hold views that they are inferior or unacceptable or do we move them down the adoption list and let "normal" children get adopted before them? If someone holds intolerant views against people who are causing no harm to anyone then we should fight them and not just take the moral high ground and say "well they have their views, we have ours...give them a child!"

[Jaysyn]

Don't be stupid. Paedophiles have victims.

No they don't. Child molesters have victims. Paedophiles are adults who are sexually attracted to young children. They are free to do so as long as they aren't breaking any laws. Society, as a whole, may frown on their attraction, but have no right interfere with the paedophile unless he/she gives in to urges & commits an illegal act.

Yea, you fucked up an analogy.

Not only did he mess up your analogy, atheists are actually a protected class when it comes to religion in the workplace. (EEOC v. Townley Manufacturing, 859 F.2d 610 (9th Cir.1988)

[Skipper]

Don't be stupid. Paedophiles have victims.

No they don't. Child molesters have victims. Paedophiles are adults who are sexually attracted to young children. They are free to do so as long as they aren't breaking any laws. Society, as a whole, may frown on their attraction, but have no right interfere with the paedophile unless he gives in to urges & commits an illegal act.

Fair enough. But still, if during the adoption process it turns out the person looking to adopt is a paedophile, should we give them the child? In the same way, if during the adoption phase it turns out the couple looking to adopt are homophobes or racists or Nazis should we let them adopt? There obviously needs to be a vetting process when looking for potential people to adopt so if its not there to spot these sorts of signs of homophobia, racism or sexual pervertedness (which surely are all signs of less than ideal candidates, to say the least) whilst also looking for any threat to a potentially adopted child what is it there for?

[Jaysyn]

Fair enough. But still, if during the adoption process it turns out the person looking to adopt is a paedophile, should we give them the child?

No, of course not as that would cause an obvious conflict of interest regarding the child's welfare.

[Skipper]

Fair enough. But still, if during the adoption process it turns out the person looking to adopt is a paedophile, should we give them the child?

No, of course not as that would cause an obvious conflict of interest regarding the child's welfare.

And any child that would be given to the couple in question could be , or turn out to be gay. I'd say this couple hold views that are an obvious conflict of interest regarding the childs welfare without even taking into account the opportunity they would have to pass their views onto the child regarding homosexuality, an act that has no effect on anyone other than the consenting adults involved. Again, an intolerance that we should be fighting.

[Faith No More]

So no pentecostals can adopt either? What about Evangelists? Mormons?

Loving the authoritarianism guys...

Fight fire with fire.

In this case it's more "Fight bigotry with bigotry", not something I could support.

These parents were applying to be foster parents in which case the governement has every right to make a subjective decision about their ability to be caretakers based on the parent's belief system. Saying a person is unfit to take care of a child because of their prejudices is in no way bigotry.