The Uk Gay Rights Act

[Boltrig]

So now religious adoption agencies in the UK will be forced to treat gay couples equally as straight couples when it comes to adopting a kid?

You have to admit, thats bullshit.

Im not debating the point that gays shouldnt be allowed to adopt, thats a different argument. Im arguing the point that since the Christian religion denounces gay relationships, and thats their right in a country where you are free to practice your religion, why should the be force to let gay couples use their CHRISTIAN adoption centres? Thats taking away their religious rights.

What does NG think? A step in the right direction or Political Correctness gone haywire?

[InsertFunnyUserName]

That's like saying that a black kid shouldn't be allowed to go to a certain school because the pricipal is white.

The fact of the matter is that everybody is equal and should be treated equally. Otherwise, we will become a sociaty ruled by aparthide.

[JakeHero]

Boltrig, you should learn liberals don't give a damn about christian's freedom of religious expression.

[Boltrig]

At 1/26/07 03:44 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: That's like saying that a black kid shouldn't be allowed to go to a certain school because the pricipal is white.

Is it hell. Its a religion. Established for 2000 years, that says marriage and family should be between a man and woman. To force them to cow down to gay rights activists is to force them to abandon 2 millenia of establishment.

To say a black kid cant go to a school cause the principal is white is good old fashioned racism. Theres no established 2millenia tradition of white headteachers dissalowing black students into the classroom.

Cretin

[ReiperX]

The Adoption agency must abide by certain rules, and discriminating because of homosexuality was ruled as wrong. I'm sure the agencies also cannot discrminate based on race either. Some of your very conservative Christian groups thinks the mixing of races is wrong. Can they discriminate based on religion?

[Boltrig]

At 1/26/07 04:07 PM, ReiperX wrote: The Adoption agency must abide by certain rules, and discriminating because of homosexuality was ruled as wrong. I'm sure the agencies also cannot discrminate based on race either. Some of your very conservative Christian groups thinks the mixing of races is wrong. Can they discriminate based on religion?

Im not saying all agencies should be allowed to. If you run a non-denominational adoption agency, you should have to abide by the governments rulings, no matter what your personal feelings are. However, the adoption agencies run by the church, and therefore under the catch all bracket of Christianity, are now being forced to abide by these laws DESPITE having a 2000 year old recognised religion that forbids it.

And not some of MY Christian groups. Im agnostic. Im just VERY against this messed up, out of control PC culture.

[LadyGrace]

I see your point, but if the adoption agency runs on government funding, they have to abide by government rulings. However, if they're run strictly on donations, then the government has no right to force them to adopt to gay couples.

Of course, if they're really outraged by it and it goes against all their beliefs, then they can always close the adoption agency. I kind of have the feeling if someone is forcing you to live one way, but you believe another, then just get rid of what's causing the problem altogether. Then, the hundreds (possibly thousands) of adoptable children will put strain on the other government funded organizations, and the government will probably not give a shit about the Christian stand on gay couple adoption as long as the adoption agency is reorgainized.

[Boltrig]

Thats whats happening to a few. Rather than going against their faith, they are closing down the agencies. Props to them for sticking to their guns.

So to the gay rights protesters, plead your case to the hundreds if not thousands of children who will have to remain in care, or plead it to the staff in the remaining agencies who will be worked to breaking point. Imsure they will congratulate you on your heroic efforts.

[xineph]

At 1/26/07 03:58 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 1/26/07 03:44 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: That's like saying that a black kid shouldn't be allowed to go to a certain school because the pricipal is white.

Is it hell. Its a religion. Established for 2000 years,:

This means nothing.

:that says marriage and family should be between a man and woman. To force them to cow down to gay rights activists is to force them to abandon 2 millenia of establishment.:
No, it doesn't. I'll get to that in a minute.

To say a black kid cant go to a school cause the principal is white is good old fashioned racism. Theres no established 2millenia tradition of white headteachers dissalowing black students into the classroom.

Cretin

Hypothetical situation:

The government decides that you're right, and people who believe a certain thing are given special rights that others don't. OK, la de da. Now, can you name for me another group that's against gay marriage? They start with an r... Republicans, Bolty, Republicans.

Now, time for a new hypothetical situation:

Let's say this whole "Christian's Ask to be Left our of Gay Adoptions" thing never happened. Now, there are already Republican funded orphanages all across the US, and politically funded ones in the UK as well. And do you know what would happen if a Republican adoption place decided ask to refuse gay couples?

Nothing, that's what. This is because Republicanism is an idea. It's not some omnipotent force that can impede onto other people's rights and wishes. The gay people would be up in arms about their rights, and they would be if Christianity did it too. Just because an idea is alternative does not mean it is equally valid by an stretch of the imagination.

Now, you may ask "This is the right of the religion. Why don't gays just go to a non-religious orphanage?" This is not fair for two reasons:

1. This may be incredibly inconvenient for those trying to adopt, as Christian orphanages are often the only ones in a given area.

2. This is not fair to the children, because you are excluding them from a certain upbringing just because Christianity is not cool with it. By that strain of thinking, they could request to refuse any couple that doesn't match up with their religions... Who's next off the list? Muslims? Jews? People who haven't been baptized? Anything's possible.

Also, you spoke of a "two thousand year old religion" being established and holding sway. In response, I speak of a "five thousand year old form of government in which people don't get to make exclusions just because their club decides they don't like a group of people".

You are wrong.
End.

[unvincibledudeman]

Basically, gays do have the same rights as everyone else but some persist in making a goddamm fuss about equality when they don't really knwo what they want. Also -in my experiences- christians are generally annoying as are most other people who practice a religion. I agree this is bullshit but not on the grounds that it is a defiance of christianity but that it's a big fuss about sod all.

[Memorize]

At 1/26/07 05:05 PM, xineph wrote:

You are wrong.

Actually, you're wrong and he's already proved that. If they're not government funded, then they don't have to abide by the government's rules. The government basically broke its own laws because of a few people who complained. They said that there is no freedom of religion.

You're just too much of a dumb, little dipshit to understand how these things work.

[Bolo]

At 1/26/07 03:58 PM, Boltrig wrote: Is it hell. Its a religion. Established for 2000 years, that says marriage and family should be between a man and woman. To force them to cow down to gay rights activists is to force them to abandon 2 millenia of establishment.

That's bullshit, and you know it. By saying that, you are saying that every SINGLE statement made in a religious text that was writen over 2000 years ago, and is based on standards that are no longer relevant in today's society, is to be used as a template for government.

I'm not saying that you're religion is wrong, whatever religion you may be a party to, but I am saying that forcing people to abandon basic human rights that belong to all people in the name of some grand religious principle, is a thinly veiled attempt to promote homophobia.

Ironic; I thought religions were supposed to promote peace and equality for all people of the world.

[Memorize]

At 1/26/07 06:25 PM, Bolo wrote:

Ironic; I thought religions were supposed to promote peace and equality for all people of the world.

Ironic: The government went against its own laws. They didn't have any government funding. According to law, the government cannot enforce its own upon them. (this is IF they didn't recieve government funding)

You're also an idiot. Congrats.

[xineph]

At 1/26/07 06:16 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/26/07 05:05 PM, xineph wrote:

You are wrong.

Actually, you're wrong and he's already proved that. If they're not government funded, then they don't have to abide by the government's rules. The government basically broke its own laws because of a few people who complained. They said that there is no freedom of religion.

You're just too much of a dumb, little dipshit to understand how these things work.

Hehe... I'm sure you would know, wouldn't you?

These "government's rules", you're speaking of... They're not exclusive things that only apply to orphanages and hospitals. These rules are called "laws", and no one gets an exception from them. If an orphanage decides it wants to baptize kids or teach them Christian values, whatever, because this neither infringes on other laws nor does it apply to anyone other than the kids, who are under the care of the orphanage. Excluding 500,000 couples from adopting, which is the purpose of the orphanage of the first place, is an infraction against both of the aforementioned faults. You also mentioned that the government "broke its own laws" (how strange, they're not just 'government's rules' anymore) "because a few people complained". If by this you meant, "decided to make its own laws apply to a group of people because of the protests of several million britons" then yes, your statement is correct.

[Memorize]

At 1/26/07 06:34 PM, xineph wrote:

Hehe... I'm sure you would know, wouldn't you?

You have no idea what private institutions are do you? Ever heard of private schools? They're exempt from government. That's why there are these things called Christian Schools. In these schools, they (not the government) make the rules; such as that you can pray in class (for example).

Once again, you're an idiot.

[Bolo]

At 1/26/07 06:28 PM, Experimental wrote: Ironic: The government went against its own laws. They didn't have any government funding. According to law, the government cannot enforce its own upon them. (this is IF they didn't recieve government funding)

Being gay isn't a religion, sir. Being gay is a state of mind, and a chemical reaction in the brain that causes one to be attracted to members of the same sex. Thus, the government is not forcing these adoption agencies to accept another religion (according to the topical poster, being gay), but instead are allowing all members of society to be treated without discriminatory policies somewhat reminiscent of the American south pre-1960s in regard to African Americans. Come on now, we're out out of the dark ages— let's act like it.

You're also an idiot. Congrats.

Funny, how the kneejerk reaction Republicans unfailingly seem to follow when confronted with damning opposing viewpoints is to spew ill-conceived insults towards the aforementioned opposing party.

tsk. tsk.

P.S. I liked you better as "Techware"

[xineph]

Bolo covered most of my sentiments, so I'm only going to get the one he missed....

That's why there are these things called Christian Schools. In these schools, they (not the government) make the rules; such as that you can pray in class (for example).

Once again, you're an idiot.

You're big on repeating yourself aren't you? I'll say what I already said, as well: The difference is that the "prayer" rule you're referring to and this issue is that it applies only to the kids in the school. What orphanages were trying to do is affect those not under their jurisdiction, which would be illegal.

[Memorize]

At 1/26/07 06:57 PM, xineph wrote:

What orphanages were trying to do is affect those not under their jurisdiction, which would be illegal.

You still have no idea what the Private Sector is. Take Private Schools for instance (again), unlike public schools, they can accept or deny whoever they want for whatever reason they wish.

What they did was not illegal as it was privately funded.

It amazes me the stupidity in young people today. Even the clearest sentence can pass right over their heads.

Being gay isn't a religion, sir. Being gay is a state of mind, and a chemical reaction in the brain that causes one to be attracted to members of the same sex.

So you admit it's a disease? Remember, you said it, not me.

but instead are allowing all members of society to be treated without discriminatory policies somewhat reminiscent of the American south pre-1960s in regard to African Americans. Come on now, we're out out of the dark ages— let's act like it.

And like I said, it's a Private institution, therefore they can accept or dismiss whoever they want because it is privately funded. Why else are churches exempt from *ding ding* taxes.

spew ill-conceived insults towards the aforementioned opposing party.

That's because it drives you to actually keep arguing against me when you have nothing on your side. It's entertainment.

[xineph]

Right, I'm done here. This is no longer a topic, this is the verge of a flame-war where one side hopes to mask itself with mind-numbing hyperbole, misrepresentation, and hypocrisy. Those who are staying, good luck with that. I'm out.

[Memorize]

At 1/26/07 07:06 PM, xineph wrote: Right, I'm done here. This is no longer a topic, this is the verge of a flame-war where one side hopes to mask itself with mind-numbing hyperbole, misrepresentation, and hypocrisy. Those who are staying, good luck with that.

Well excuse me if I have the law on my side.

I'm out.

Get your ass back in here you wuss.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/26/07 06:16 PM, Experimental wrote: If they're not government funded, then they don't have to abide by the government's rules.

He never said that.

Run by the church doesn't mean they are 100% funded by the church, it means they are operated by the church...

[mrpiex]

I hate everything the british do. And the french. And basically all of europe. Except southern ireland. My homeland.

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 1/26/07 02:37 PM, Boltrig wrote: So now religious adoption agencies...

Christian adoption agencies. I think that choosing a child's parents and freedom of religion are two very different things.

[Memorize]

At 1/26/07 07:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

He never said that.

And I said IF

Run by the church doesn't mean they are 100% funded by the church, it means they are operated by the church...

And since when does the government fund religous institutions?

[Camarohusky]

At 1/26/07 07:46 PM, Experimental wrote: And since when does the government fund religous institutions?

I seem to remember GW did something of the sort... Faith Based Initiative

[Memorize]

At 1/26/07 07:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I seem to remember GW did something of the sort... Faith Based Initiative

Uh huh, right.

"President Bush talked about the important philanthropic role individual volunteers, corporations and foundataions play in providing funding for social services."

I hereby give you the "dee dee dee" award.

[cellardoor6]

At 1/26/07 03:44 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: That's like saying that a black kid shouldn't be allowed to go to a certain school because the pricipal is white.

Hmm thats funny because there ARE schools in the US that don't allow whites to attend.

The fact of the matter is that everybody is equal and should be treated equally. Otherwise, we will become a sociaty ruled by aparthide.

By preventing a private CHRISTIAN adoption agency from exercising their beliefs, THAT would causing people to be treated unequally. Forcing private parties to disregard their own religious beliefs is just an example of people taking away rights in the quest to give equal rights.

Hypocrisy of the highest caliber.

[reviewer-general]

At 1/26/07 07:03 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/26/07 06:57 PM, xineph wrote:

Being gay isn't a religion, sir. Being gay is a state of mind, and a chemical reaction in the brain that causes one to be attracted to members of the same sex.

So you admit it's a disease? Remember, you said it, not me.

Shut the fuck up, thats not what he said AT ALL. I would say his description of "a chemical reaction in the brain" is probably not accurate, but I dont (or I guess anyone for that matter) knows why we are attracted to even the opposite sex, let alone the same sex, so he's saying it's the same thing as a "normal" hetero persons attraction to the opposite sex.

[Durin413]

Also what people seem to forget is that marriage is a religious ceremony.

The adoption agencies are being violated. They should be able to make hte judgements on who they give the kids too based on the values they have. If your gay then find an adoption agency that will accept that freely. If you are gay and want to get married find a priest who will do it with the sanction of his church.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/26/07 08:16 PM, Memorize wrote: Uh huh, right.

"President Bush talked about the important philanthropic role individual volunteers, corporations and foundataions play in providing funding for social services."

I hereby give you the "dee dee dee" award.

Ah yes, the little kiddo comes to play in the big man's world and can't stand when he loses.

Religious charities CAN recieve fund from the government, that's the wole point of the initiative. If religious charities CAN recieve fund from the government, the government isn't automatically overstepping its beound by controlling how the religious group spends the government's money. Yet, the topic starter has not given the information as to whether these select religious charities are governmentally funded or not. So knowing all of this, we cannot pass judgement until that fact is given to us.