Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

quote:

---

Discriminating is always wrong. Placing a child in a home that will not cause him to be discriminated against through no fault of his own is a good thing. The world is not ready for your version of 'right'.

---

...and it never is.This is the same argument that people used to argue against legalizing mixed race marriages, allowing women in universities and in the workplace, etc.For many people, it will be a problem and those at the vanguard will face some unpleasant times, to be sure. But the way to deal with oppression and hatred is not to cower and allow the bigots to dictate the rules. The homophobes don't like gay adoption? That's too bad for them.Look, there are probably thousands of children being brought up by gay couples right now. They are fine. No study has ever uncovered any problems with gay people raising children. The only difference between children raised by homosexyal parents is that they tend to have a more positive attitude towards homosexuality.And I think THAT is the real problem the Catholics have with gay adoption. They REALLY want people to continue to hate gays.

quote:

---

I would have no fear about it except for the perhaps legitimate fear of bigotry against the children by their peers.

---

So, your response to bigotry is to bow to the bigot's demands?

quote:

---

If sex is not consensual, if it is undertaken with out the desire for a child, if one or the other parent is not involved with the child's life, if divorce occurs, if cheating occurs, one or more people involved will be deeply violated, scarred, and perhaps dead thru abortion.

---

So, does this mean that you actually believe that anyone having sex for pleasure alone will suffer terrible emotional damage?(Funny, I don't feel emotionally damaged...)

quote:

---

Character references are a good idea nowadays, and 'good' character is determined in different ways by different folk.

---

So, you all would rather let a child stay in foster care than allow them to be adopted by a gay couple that would be judged, if they were a hetero couple, an excellent candidate as adoptive parents, is that correct?And also, I rather resent your homophobic slur against the character of homosexuals.Their "characters" vary no less that that of straight people.

quote:

---

I am not sure why any gay couple would absolutely insist on going to a catholic agency. As if there were a shortage of unwanted kids or something

---

Well, that was a dodge. And yes, you are right that there is no shortage of unwanted kids....which is why I asked the question, "So, you all would rather let a child stay in foster care than allow them to be adopted by a gay couple that would be judged, if they were a hetero couple, an excellent candidate as adoptive parents, is that correct?"Yes or no?

quote:

---

Would you be willing to let a child stay in foster care rather than see them adopted to a person who is very poor, or has past criminal charges of a non-violent nature? Sad to say, it happens all of the time. Suitability is determined on a very discriminatory basis in general, and is purely subjective to the views of the agency.

---

The thing is, that wasn't my question. Being too poor to provide for the child is not an issue with our hypothetical gay couple. Having a past criminal record is not an issue with them, either.You keep saying that it is wrong to discriminate against gay people, but then in the next sentence you attempt to justify it by equating homosexuality with criminality.

quote:

---

If you give me some concrete evidence that homosexuality is not a choice,

---

As a kid, when did you choose to be straight? How many girls did you lust after as a teenager before deciding t be attracted to boys?

quote:

---

In most same-sex partnerships, the roles of male and female are not clearly shown. It is often not two men showing male behavior, or two women showing female behavior. They may be showing love, but not 'role' as they are often acting in the 'role' of the opposite sex.

---

What do gender roles have to do with love and cohabitation?Or rather, why do there need to be roles defined by gender?

quote:

---

I believe my arguments by analogy are strong ones: the wait-staff who fear loud music,

---

Earplugs are easy to use and do not hinder the staff's ability to work.

quote:

---

and the vegan wait-staff stressed into poor health by being required to serve meat.

---

Uh, I'm sorry Omni, but I have never heard of a major health crisis among vegan waitstaff who have so much anxiety over serving meat that they require medical attention at all, let alone on a par with people who are affected by second hand smoke.

quote:

---

I am very proud of the churches who are not bullied by secular standards,

---

You mean like the Churches that weren't "bullied" by the secular standards regarding protecting pedophiles, wife beaters, and racists?

quote:

---

Can we have a new rule? If you've been defended by the ACLU (like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have) you don't get to trash-talk the ACLU.

---

Can't belive you forgot the big one:Jerry Falwell was represented by the ACLU, too.

quote:

---

Some media sources have noted that when placed in perspective, the documented cases in the Catholic Church are much lower than incidents of child sexual abuse in the public school system. For the latter, the problem is over three times higher (up to 5% of American teachers, versus estimates of 0.2%[7] and 1.5% of Catholic priests), and only an estimated 1% of sexually abusive teachers have faced the loss of their license since most are merely moved to other districts. The police are rarely notified.[8]

---

Yeah. So what?The last time I checked, "everybody does it" is not a valid excuse for wrongdoing.Also, the last time I checked, aren't priests and the Catholic Church supposed to be moral leaders, above and beyond the rest of us? Don't they swear an oath or something?I mean, come on. Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate, ana, let alone not pedophiles! They are also supposed to be men of God, which would seem to me to preclude predatory sexual coersion of little boys.

quote:

---

I have no idea what your racism and wife-beating comments refer to. Last I checked the Catholic clergy have no wives to beat.

---

Edited to fix confusing quote attribution!You wrote: And I replied: I was making a more general comment about what religions, including Catholocism condone and encourage that are outside of "secular standards".For example, for quite a long time, abuse of a woman by her husband was not condoned by "secular standards", yet many churches, when abused women came in search of help, were basically told that the abuse was her fault for not pleasing her husband and that she had no choice but to try to make it work.Another example is the complicity of the Catholic Church/Vatican to Hitler and it's endorsement of Nazi Germany.The point I was making was that "secular standards" have trended towards the more humane and less persecutorial over the centuries, and the various influential religions have resisted such change and generally have to be forced to stop discriminating or otherwise oppressing certain groups that the rest of the modern world embraced decades before.Edited by nator, : to fix confusing quotes. Sorry!

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

quote:

---

The point is, the reason why the church scandal is seen as such a big deal, is precisely because people expect better of christianity, and not because the issue itself is unusual.

---

Well, I haven't read your reply to Omni yet, so we'll see.

quote:

---

The Catholic church did not 'endorse Nazi Germany'. It maintianed a neutral stance as opposed to complicity with Communism. Pius XII himself harbored Jews in the Vatican.

---

So, do you know what the "concordat" signed in 1933 by Pope Pius XII was?

quote:

---

It is about taking a stand on politics, Dan. There was little proof at that time that any genocide was taking place. Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, and Eisenhower never even mentioned the holocaust in their post-war writings.

---

source

So, do you know what the "concordat" signed in 1933 by Pope Pius XII was?