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

Just to butt in - I'm not sure if its fair to assert that the bible is either entirely true or entirely false. Its only a fraction of them (perhaps a sizable one, I don't know) who believe that it is without error. There are bags of sensible human beings who "cherry pick", but this doesn't have to be seen as capricious - its also the product of the traditions of their particular religious community.

I hear (read?) what you are saying. I agree of course. I only wanted to make a fine distinction. I piped up because I thought you were making it sound as though a modern Christian treated the bible like it was a menu, and they ordered what they liked from it. Although this might be true in many cases, I disagree. On the whole, I don't think these people are having a bit of what they fancy to please themselves.People like anastasia have recieved their understanding from centuries of Catholic thought. When s/he thinks its common sense to eat cockles but keep gays away from our precious children, she isn't making a judgment to suit herself - she demonstrating that her perception is moulded by Catholic discourse. That's not to say that its any more attractive - but it isn't about her petty wants - its about the Christian discourse on homosexuality that stretches back to Paul.I have a different problem with this whole issue.To be charitable, I'll make the assumption that while there are many people whose objection to homosexuality is largely an infantile response learned in the playground, there are probably some whose attitudes towards gay adoption are on chiefly or wholly on theological grounds. What I don't understand is how this theological case is made, and I haven't really heard it advanced over the past few days. Through their actions, the Archibishops of Canterbury and York seemed to imply that there is an explicit rejection of gay parents somewhere in doctrine (maybe Judges 6:9 "and lo, the gays were denied the chance to adopt, for they were gay, unlike the other, eligible would-be-adopters"), as though their case didn't have to be made. Perhaps I'm missing something but I'd imagine a lot of text in the bible can be interpreted to support gay parents, just as a lot of it can be interpreted to decry them.When did the anti-gay adoption lobby win that textual argument? I wasn't informed.Edited by Tusko, : innocuous stylistic tweakEdited by Tusko, : clarified a sentence