Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
March 3, 2011 at 12:17 pm
(March 3, 2011 at 8:42 am)Dotard Wrote:
(March 3, 2011 at 6:40 am)tackattack Wrote: That doesn't necessitate them being homophobic. I'm not homophobic, but I don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle and wouldn't promote it to my children,.....
According to this lot that would qualify you as a homophobe.
Majority doesn't make it any closer to correct. I do not restrict anyone's freedoms based on any preferences, only their actions. People can pretend to be OK with every dark crevice of humanity, but that just shows a lack of ability to apply theory to real life. The fact I have an opinion does not qualify me for an emotional investment towards something thus inducing the fear necessary for homophobia.
Also.. homophone.. hilarious... I corrected, but frickin hilarious. Thanx 4 the catch!
(March 3, 2011 at 9:31 am)Jaysyn Wrote:
(March 3, 2011 at 9:24 am)Dotard Wrote: Because someone will not say homosexuality is 'acceptable' they are compaired to racists and nazis. They are in some way 'polluting' childrens minds with 'evil nonsense' and they would be 'fucking them up'.
Oh yeah.... any rational reasonable person can see that.
Well, he was actually using racists & Nazi's foster parents as an example Dotard. Do try to keep up.
BTW, for all we know this couple told the social worker that homosexuality is an abomination before god.
And none of the information in the article presented clearly identifies them as homophobic, just having an opinion on the matter. Continuing with theoretical postulations is fine as long as we keep the OP in context.
(March 3, 2011 at 10:34 am)Jaysyn Wrote:
(March 3, 2011 at 10:12 am)Skipper Wrote: 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.
(March 3, 2011 at 10:12 am)Skipper Wrote: 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)
and by the same analogy homophobes are adults who are afraid of homosexuals/ homosexual lifestyle. They should be free to do so as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others, thus breaking the law. Society as a whole may frown on their opinion, but they are entitled to it and it should in no way inhibit their freedom to adopt.
@Faith no more - and what supports them being bigots. I see no exhibition of intolerance or animosity.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
March 3, 2011 at 12:24 pm (This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 1:00 pm by Jaysyn.)
(March 3, 2011 at 12:17 pm)tackattack Wrote: Society as a whole may frown on their opinion, but they are entitled to it and it should in no way inhibit their freedom to adopt.
Quit making things up. There is no such thing as "freedom to adopt." It's a privilege not a right. The state is supposed to be very particular where they place their wards for foster care.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
March 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm (This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 1:03 pm by Jaysyn.)
(March 3, 2011 at 12:44 pm)theVOID Wrote: Hahahaha you're promoting arbitrary constraints as a good thing???
You're right, "particular" is a much better word than arbitrary for this instance. Arbitrary would mean they didn't have a reason to choose to let the couple foster, when they obviously do. Thanks.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm
(March 3, 2011 at 8:27 am)Jaysyn Wrote: Adoption is not a right, Adrian. No matter how badly you want to be right & no matter how many times you repeat that it is, nothing is going to change that fact.
Ok, but it is a privilege, and a privilege that is being denied for the simple reason that you (and the government apparently) don't agree with their beliefs. I hold that a simple disagreement is not a valid reason.
Quote:And if you honestly think that raising a child as a racist or Nazi is in the best interest of the child, then it's obvious that you are very, very inexperienced in matters of child rearing & welfare & your opinion on this matter is of little worth.
I think that in a free country, people are allowed to have their own opinions, and that those opinions should not mean they are denied privileges by the government. What use is freedom of speech and expression if the government can just deny privileges based on what you say and support? Face it, by denying this couple the privilege of adoption, you are completely discarding these freedoms.
Quote:If you think the state should be giving money to a racist or a Nazi to actually foster a child, well that's just hilarious.
Hilarious to you; fair and equal to me. I don't have to like what people believe in order to support their right to express it, and their right (yes, their right) not to be discriminated over it.
(March 3, 2011 at 8:37 am)Jaysyn Wrote: Yes, and if they cannot control their urges & actually do something illegal to or with a minor they can be put in a mental hospital like any other person with a mental condition they didn't "choose" to have. Certainly you are not suggesting that it should be legal for said paedophiles to have sexual relations with a child because they didn't "choose" to be a paedophile?
No, and there wasn't anything in what I originally said that could have possibly led you to such a conclusion.
(March 3, 2011 at 9:00 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: How could it be something we should be teaching kids? Are you suggesting that racism is a belief system that has a possibility of being right?
No, I'm suggesting that some parents do think it is something they should be teaching their kids. The government don't stop parents from teaching their own children about their beliefs, so why do they try and stop when the child is fostered or adopted?
(March 3, 2011 at 9:09 am)Jaysyn Wrote: No, he's suggesting that *foster* parents have the right to pollute *foster* children's heads with evil nonsense so when they give them back to the state in 2 or 3 years they are even more fucked up than when they got there.
Sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?
It is only pollution and evil in your opinion. I hold that it isn't up to you to decide what can and cannot be taught to children; it is up to the parents (be them biological, foster, or adoptive). In a highly religious society, the government may decide that you aren't allowed to foster children, because you may teach them your atheistic beliefs. I assume that you'd be fine with that right? I mean, the government's always right yeah?
(March 3, 2011 at 10:12 am)Skipper Wrote: 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.
Correction. Some paedophiles have victims; others have enough sense not to follow through with their sexual desires.
Quote: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.
Another liberal against freedom of speech? You guys are everywhere!!!
RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
March 3, 2011 at 3:52 pm (This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 4:25 pm by Jaysyn.)
(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Hilarious to you; fair and equal to me. I don't have to like what people believe in order to support their right to express it, and their right (yes, their right) not to be discriminated over it.
So you'd be fine & dandy with a company that didn't hire blacks, women or homosexuals? No? Then tell me how is this different? The state is ultimately responsible for this child & seemingly can no longer endorse the views that the couple in question have by letting them foster children. It's actually pretty cut & dry when you think of it that way.
(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I think that in a free country, people are allowed to have their own opinions, and that those opinions should not mean they are denied privileges by the government. What use is freedom of speech and expression if the government can just deny privileges based on what you say and support? Face it, by denying this couple the privilege of adoption, you are completely discarding these freedoms.
You are conveniently ignoring right of the foster child to not have his mind filled with bigotry against a protected class, which I & apparently the UK, would consider bad form if not mental abuse. You are also ignoring the rights of the state to decide where to place foster children. Why on earth do you think the racist's or homophobe's privilege supersedes these?
A natural parents rights may supersede them, but a foster parent's do not, no matter how you frame your argument.
(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: In a highly religious society, the government may decide that you aren't allowed to foster children, because you may teach them your atheistic beliefs. I assume that you'd be fine with that right? I mean, the government's always right yeah?
But we are talking about the UK & USA, not Saudi Arabia. Everyone here already knows that theocracies are lost causes.
(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It is only pollution and evil in your opinion.
It's unethical & borderline to outright mental abuse.
(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No, I'm suggesting that some parents do think it is something they should be teaching their kids. The government don't stop parents from teaching their own children about their beliefs, so why do they try and stop when the child is fostered or adopted?
Because the natural parent's right supersede that of the state. If the child is a ward of the state this is no longer true.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
March 3, 2011 at 4:02 pm
(March 3, 2011 at 12:17 pm)tackattack Wrote: @Faith no more - and what supports them being bigots. I see no exhibition of intolerance or animosity.
I never referred to them as bigots. See the post I was responding to for context.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
March 3, 2011 at 4:19 pm (This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 4:21 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No, I'm suggesting that some parents do think it is something they should be teaching their kids. The government don't stop parents from teaching their own children about their beliefs, so why do they try and stop when the child is fostered or adopted?
Are you still talking about racist beliefs here? Do you think that racist beliefs should be allowed to be taught? Why should racist beliefs be passed down to anyone when they don't have to be and when such beliefs are bigotry of the worst kind?
RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
March 3, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Of course racist beliefs should be allowed to be taught, the alternative is arresting people who say racist things, fuck that, People do not deserve to be arrested for saying something that we disagree with regardless of who it offends - It's the same reason the WBC just won their court case on the grounds of free speech.
RE: Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.
March 3, 2011 at 4:31 pm (This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 4:34 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
If racist beliefs could be prevented from being taught, that would give racism less freedom and who wants a surplus of bigoted racist freedom?
It's not a matter of things being said that "offend" or that "we disagree with" it's a matter of bigotry of the worst kind being prevented from having as much freedom as non-bigotry.
