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

Excuse my quote mining for just a moment for I will be addressing your and others' points after I read through the entire thread. I just had to comment on this. This is one of the silliest arguments I have heard in the gay adoption debates (and in the homosexual marriage/raising natural kids debates, too).Kids get teased for many, many things.Should we not allow lower class people to adopt because their kids will get teased and potentially discriminated against for being poor?Should we not allow vegetarians to adopt because their kids might get teased for not eating meat?Should we not allow Muslims to adopt and raise their kids with Islam because they might be teased or discriminated against? Or any other religious "minority" for that matter?Should we not allow disabled people to adopt because their kids might get teased?Should we not allow people who move alot to adopt because their kids will continually have to prove themselves and will probably get teased for being "the new kid?"I could go on and on.How about this? My real name is Pepper. I got teased mercilessly as a child because of the name my parents chose for me. Should I have been taken away from them? We were pretty poor, too, so I got teased for my clothes and where I lived. I was teased for my freckles. I was teased for being intelligent. I was teased for alot of things.Let's say I was adopted as an infant and my working class parents wanted to call me Pepper. Should I have been denied a loving home just because I would grow up poor and oddly named and therefore subject to teasing?I have found that teasing (mostly) makes one stronger and helps one to develop empathy and sympathy towards others.Is that what people who oppose gay adoptions are afraid of? That kids growing up in a house with two mommies or two daddies will have a sense of acceptance for homosexuals (or other oppressed groups)? There has been no research that suggests that kids growing up in a homosexual household are deprived in any way compared to other kids, so I can think of no other reason besides irrational hatred to deny orphaned/abandoned/abused/neglected children a stable, loving home.Would you condone an adoption agency that refused to place kids with Christians? Would you fight for their right to discriminate in such a way?

Barring a lengthy discussion of the meaning of "adultery," I ask the following questions:What is the "mystery" surrounding human reproduction? Is it different from non-human (sexual) reproduction? Has the "mystery" not been explained to your satisfaction through science?How is a homosexual act in and of itself not respectful of the human body?What is the human body's design?We don't seem to have been designed very well with regards to our upright locomotion. However, my arms are "designed" at just the right length to touch myself. My "designed" brain and the hormones it secretes cause me to desire sexual contact (my genes and/or responses to visual/pheremonal stimuli cause me to desire such contact with women). The "design" of which you speak is obvious to everyone, but only religion puts restraints on how to use the "design".How is the harmony between a man and a woman different than between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Unless you are concerned with puzzle pieces (and different puzzles provide different pieces), harmony speaks to me of love and unity with another person. Not crude analogies concerning body parts.How are the models of "strength and tenderness" compromised in a homosexual relationship? Do you really think that two women will only coddle their children and teach them only tenderness and nurturing and docility?Do you think that two men will only teach their children strength and stoicism and dominance?Do you buy into such stereotypes? Do you not know any strong women or nurturing men? So all the infertile couples who can "only dream of the option" do not do anything of value?I agree that life is precious. I would also say that life extends beyond birth. Those who would take in someone else's "creation" and love her and care for her and provide her with a home does just as much an "ultimate good" as the people who brought that child into the world.P.S. Homosexuals can reproduce...only in the same ways that infertile couple can. Should infertile couples never have sex because they cannot have children as they were "designed?" Should they not be able to adopt because they are commiting "adultery" by having lust without the possibility of bearing children? The problem is, I do see the beauty in the "harmonious flow of life," but I don't only see it as beautiful because it was "meant to be" through heterosexual sex. I see beauty and harmony in love, in progress, in caring for and helping others. I may not have my own children (I dunno...I am still up in the air, but I feel I will adopt) but I will seek out and accept children when I feel I am ready to give them my unconditional emotional and financial support. Raising a new generation is raising a new generation regardless of whether or not they are my "flesh and blood."Last but not least: So, you leave out parts of the Bible because you are not an "Old Testament Jew" but you adhere to the original commandments given to the Hebrews?God's law is God's law is it not?

And your evidence for this is? The first example is a complete strawman. No one is proposing forcing churches to hire atheists as their youth pastors.The second example is a little trickier. I think the question is more would a conservative Christian work for the ACLU. Most likely, not. But I doubt you could find evidence for a conservative Christian being denied a job at the ACLU simply for being a conservative Christian unless, of course, his ideology would impede him from doing his job. You might find that there are conservative Christians who actually believe in the Establishment Clause and in civil liberties and in defending the defenseless and would be able to their job there quite well. I'm not sure if there are any self-described conservative Christians working there, but it could happen.That's beside the point, tho. The point is that organizations like the Salvation Army want to have everyone in their company from their bell ringers to their clothes distributors to their janitors be a Christian. The analogy to the ACLU would have to be the same.The point also is that under Bush we have all these "faith based" organizations getting money from the government and being allowed to discriminate based on religion (which is a federally protected class) and sexual orientation (which is not, but it is protected in some cities).The point is that if you take money from the government (i.e. taxpayers), then you should have to abide by said government's discrimination laws. If you do not want to abide by the government's discrimination laws, then DO NOT TAKE OUR MONEY! My question is were the "Intro to Buddhism" and the "Western Civ - the Jewish Experience" allowed as elective credits? I would think that the former would have to be, but the latter - was it used as a history credit? If so, I do see the problem. If not, the issue then becomes valid. Taking a course on "Christianity throughout History" is a perfectly acceptable elective course and I would even like to see such classes and more in public schools, however, taking such a narrowly defined view of history as their sole education in the topic can become problematic once s/he enters a public university setting, especially if the text was also revisionist.I've been meaning to get a copy of America's Providential History and other texts of the sort and once I do I can probably get into more detail about this debate.