Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/27/07 06:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Yet, the topic starter has not given the information as to whether these select religious charities are governmentally funded or not.

Im making the case for the agencies that recieve funding from the Church. Even if they recieve government funding in the form of a supplemental grant, they remain fundamentaly Christian. Those are the ones I want to highlight.

xineph, Since when has the UK government been established for 5 millenia? Are you high? Up untill a few hundred years ago, the Scottish and English were still clobbering each other over who was right.. Doesnt sound like government to me. . . hang on..

Yes, the children are being exluded from a "certain" upbringing. One that the faith based adoption agency they belong to does not preach it as part of its religion. Bitch all you want, but thats how Christianity sees it. Who are you or anyone else to tell them no you cant practice your religious rights? I would LOVE to see you tell someone of the Islamic faith that they cant practice their faith. Oh the outcry! Christianity is not a soft target. Equal treatment for all the religions!

And to say that the Christian faiths 2000 year history means nothing is a pretty bold statement. So by your logic anything that has been around for less than 2000 years, their history means nothing as well? America is less than 2000 years old. The wars for independance? Civil war? Right up to the civil rights movement? All mean nothing.
Again, cretin

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.

No, the topic is UK adoption agencies. The children dont have to be orphans. They could be born to unfit parents, unwanted children, whatever. The church is trying to stick to its tradition of helping the needy, and now, to do that, they need to abandon principal.

At 1/26/07 06.25 PM, bolo wrote: 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.

Stop bringing the government into this in the wrong context! The government is neutral in this apart from the bringer of legislation. The government funded agencies can do what the hell they like!
Now to counter your main point. Where did I ever say that every religious doctrine should become law? Nowhere! But lets follow your logic of massive generalisation through to its end shall we?
By saying that you are saying that just because YOU think a religion should throw its SACRED BELIEFS out the window in favour of new found rights for gays, then they should throw away all their religious beliefs away. Belief in the fundamental good of the human. Belief in life after death that gives hope and encourages a decent existance on this earth. Belief in the importace of helping those less fortunate.
Fuck man, sounds like a world I want be part of.

So because a religion has its history rooted in the past, and you deem it no longer relevant, then it should be overruled by what you see as more relevant. Facist.

hmm well the way i see it, im not gay, but my best friend is, and i would want him to be able to adopt with his "significant other" if he so pleases...

At 1/26/07 08:40 PM, cellardoor6 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.

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

Thank you for giving me another analagy.

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.

You're a hypocrite either way if you support equal rights. But if they can't deny interacial marrages, than they shouldn't be able to deny same sex marrages/couples. And visa versa; there is no middle.

At 1/27/07 10:13 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

You're a hypocrite either way if you support equal rights. But if they can't deny interacial marrages, than they shouldn't be able to deny same sex marrages/couples.

Do you really need someone to explain that?

At 1/27/07 10:13 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

You're a hypocrite either way if you support equal rights. But if they can't deny interacial marrages, than they shouldn't be able to deny same sex marrages/couples. And visa versa; there is no middle.

Hypocrite seems to be your favourite word. Go use a dictionary and come up with something else to say. Yes all political arguments can have a few cries of hypocrasy! thrown in for good measure, but it gets boring.

Yes equal rights, but for the church as well. Just because its old and seen as outdated, doesnt mean that its an easy target. Try telling Muslims their religion is irrelevant. Same principal, the Muslims just havent lost the passion for their faith. (And please no rants on extremism; go start a new topic for that if you must)

So are you saying that because church doctrine is not in favour of gay adoption, then... they should stop interracial couples from being joined in wedlock. Im going to go watch the discovery channel for an hour to try and counteract the infectious stupidity of this argument.

I dont think religious centers should even run adoption things, what if an athiest couple wants a certain child, it should be governmentally decided, and I think gay couples should only be able to adopt the opposite sex, I think it would decrease a sexuality bias.

At 1/26/07 03:50 PM, BanditByte wrote: Boltrig, you should learn liberals don't give a damn about christian's freedom of religious expression.

Does that expression including condemning homosexual rights?

At 1/29/07 11:43 AM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote:

At 1/26/07 03:50 PM, BanditByte wrote: Boltrig, you should learn liberals don't give a damn about christian's freedom of religious expression.

Does that expression including condemning homosexual rights?

Considering the Old Testament says executed or exile gays and the New Testament says homosexuality is an abomination than that's a given.

At 1/29/07 01:54 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 1/29/07 11:43 AM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote:

At 1/26/07 03:50 PM, BanditByte wrote: Boltrig, you should learn liberals don't give a damn about christian's freedom of religious expression.

Does that expression including condemning homosexual rights?

Considering the Old Testament says executed or exile gays and the New Testament says homosexuality is an abomination than that's a given.

WOW, I now hate the bible. Don’t hate the people who follow the bible, because these days religious people usually don’t hate homosexuals.

At 1/29/07 11:43 AM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote:

At 1/26/07 03:50 PM, BanditByte wrote: Boltrig, you should learn liberals don't give a damn about christian's freedom of religious expression.

Does that expression including condemning homosexual rights?

Wether you think homosexuals should have rights is a matter of opinion. The adoption centre debate is a matter of debate. The bible says union is supposed to be between a man and woman, and the church follows that. Now gays fear persecution less, and say its between 2 men / women. Fine, think that if you like but dont force the church to cow down to your gay rights demands

I'm not 100% sure of how they run things in the UK, but typically if you're running an orphanage you have to have some kind of government certification in order to ensure proper child welfare, right? Also, designating one as a child's legal guardian is a governmental matter as well. So if discriminating against potential parents based on their sexual preference is something the government doesn't allow, then it would be the government's right to either force the orphanage to allow gays to adopt or revoke their certification, effectively shutting them down.

As a side note, wouldn't it be kinda unchristian to close down your orphanage out of religious pride, leaving the children to the care of secular institutions (which, I assume, was what the Christians in question wanted to avoid when they started their orphanage) rather than letting gays adopt them. Not to mention the whole "judge not lest ye be judged" thing.

At 1/29/07 03:24 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote: I'm not 100% sure of how they run things in the UK, but typically if you're running an orphanage you have to have some kind of government certification in order to ensure proper child welfare, right? Also, designating one as a child's legal guardian is a governmental matter as well. So if discriminating against potential parents based on their sexual preference is something the government doesn't allow, then it would be the government's right to either force the orphanage to allow gays to adopt or revoke their certification, effectively shutting them down.

Certification isnt the same as having control over it. The whole thing seems to me that the governemnt is caught between:
1) Discriminate against the church and force it to accept gays, or
2) Let the church stick to its religious rights and have the gays whine at discrimination, despite the fact that they can use a non faith-based agency instead.

I gotta go with the second option.

As a side note, wouldn't it be kinda unchristian to close down your orphanage out of religious pride, leaving the children to the care of secular institutions (which, I assume, was what the Christians in question wanted to avoid when they started their orphanage) rather than letting gays adopt them. Not to mention the whole "judge not lest ye be judged" thing.

Maybe youre right, but if the church lets gay couples adopt through its agencies, thats even more fundamentally unchristian. And it wasnt men who "judged". It was the bible, which is supposedly the word of god.

At 1/29/07 03:03 PM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote: WOW, I now hate the bible. Don’t hate the people who follow the bible, because these days religious people usually don’t hate homosexuals.

Why? All the radical stuff was written in the Old Testament. So you should either hate jews or the Torah.

I dont see why gay couples would want to have a marrige cerimony in a church, couldn't they just rent a golf course and then hire a judge to do it?

At 1/29/07 07:40 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I dont see why gay couples would want to have a marrige cerimony in a church, couldn't they just rent a golf course and then hire a judge to do it?

Gay marriage is a whole other kettle of fish. Its adoption that sthe problem, namely forcing faith based agencies to allow adoption by gays, despite it being against their beliefs.

At 1/29/07 09:00 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 1/29/07 07:40 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I dont see why gay couples would want to have a marrige cerimony in a church, couldn't they just rent a golf course and then hire a judge to do it?

Gay marriage is a whole other kettle of fish. Its adoption that sthe problem, namely forcing faith based agencies to allow adoption by gays, despite it being against their beliefs.

Either way it's not fair, the christian adoption agencies shouldn't be forced to go against their beleifs, but then again, they have no right to denie adoption rights to gays.

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, 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

I, for one, support the act.

I dont belive that people's religious rights should be in any way shape or form discriminated. however, i dont belive somebody should have discrimination thrust upon them because of a way they were born.

so really its either discriminate someone for a choice they make in believing in some superior being that supposedly controls a universe, an entire belief based on a book written almost 2000 years ago..

OR, discriminate someone for a choice they CANT make and do not let them have the right to adopt because in one section of one book says its bad.

Christians can believe whatever they want to, but gays dont have a say in the matter. Being opposed to someone because of the way they're born, is just pathetic.

At 1/29/07 09:08 PM, Aevo300 wrote:

I, for one, support the act.

I dont belive that people's religious rights should be in any way shape or form discriminated.

however, i dont belive somebody should have discrimination thrust upon them because of a way they were born.

so really its either discriminate someone for a choice they make in believing in some superior being that supposedly controls a universe, an entire belief based on a book written almost 2000 years ago..

OR, discriminate someone for a choice they CANT make and do not let them have the right to adopt because in one section of one book says its bad.

Christians can believe whatever they want to, but gays dont have a say in the matter. Being opposed to someone because of the way they're born, is just pathetic.

Saying that the Bible is irrelevant (which your argument pretty much amounts to) belittles the religions founded upon it. Belief is just that. Sometimes irrational, but a matter of personal choice nonetheless.

Im not arguing that gays shouldnt be allowed to adopt full stop. Im saying that the adoption agencies funded in part and run by the denominational groups should be allowed to stick to their beliefs. The new legislation will mean that gay couples can adopt from non-denominational agencies anyway. What does it matter if faith based ones dont allow it.

If you say to christians, "well that part of your faith is contrary to what we as a government deem forward thinking" then you pave the way to start taking the whole thing apart.

And I think you'll find gays do have a say in the matter - how else did this new legislation come about in the first place?

This is like forcing Christian adoption agencies from raising their orphans/kids as Christians and making sure the parents are Christian. Also, just say that they need to meet the prospective mother and father.

I think Gays should have equal rights, BUT they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, because children can be easily manipulated and I think it would increase the amount of homosexual people in our society, which doesn't benefit the population growth.

At 1/31/07 02:45 PM, Kenzu wrote: I think Gays should have equal rights, BUT they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, because children can be easily manipulated and I think it would increase the amount of homosexual people in our society, which doesn't benefit the population growth.

Thats a contradictory statement. Either youre for equal rights or for more rights, just not equal ones. You cant say youre for equal rightsexcept certain ones.

I agree with you but for other reasons. Same sex couples are not breeding pairs. Infertile couples yeh sure. Under normal circumstances they would be able to have kids on their own, but gay couples no matter what cant concieve and have kids of their own, so technically they shouldnt be allowed to adopt.

But thats getting off topic. If they are getting the right to adopt, then it should be from state funded agencies only, and faith based at the agencies discretion.

You have to have better arguments than comparing gay people to African-Americans or saying they were born with it. Pedophiles are born with it. Should we not discriminate against them and let them adopt children because they were born with it? If you say yes, then you are sick person. If you say no, then obviously you are not for equal rights. By the way, in the middle ages old men did marry very young girls. Our society has changed. The Catholic church changes, but it changes slowly. It has to be sure that something is not just a fad or a small instance in a much larger picture.

Your rights end where my rights begin. Christians should not have the "right" to discriminate. I don't care how "immoral" they may think a practice is, it doesn't give them any right to discriminate against these "sinners". It's not like they're being forced to have gay sex, thus condemning their immortal souls to whatever they think is in store for queers. That's what freedom of religion is really about. It's not about giving x-ians control over every aspect of our lives, it's about letting everyone WORSHIP in a way that suits them, so they don't have to choose between going to jail or going to hell. If they really think they're going to hell because they failed to convert the world, TOO FUCKING BAD.

Agreed.

I'm sorry, but I'm failling to see forcing Christian adoption agencies to allow Gay couples to adopt is actually infringing on ANYONES right to practise religion?
I mean... Ok, I understand that Christian organisations want as little to do with Gay rights issues as much as possible, but... well, I fail to see how this is infringing on the Christian Adoption Agencies rights? Isn't it just allowing a fairer system?
(I'm actually asking these questions, not being rhetorical...)

At 2/2/07 12:36 PM, specimen56 wrote:

(I'm actually asking these questions, not being rhetorical...)

Because religous agencies and institutions (as well as other private institutions) are not subject to these governmental policies.

That's just how it works. In the US anyway.

At 2/2/07 12:42 PM, Memorize wrote: Because religous agencies and institutions (as well as other private institutions) are not subject to these governmental policies.

That's just how it works. In the US anyway.

I'm not sure it workd the same way in the uk, Just been searching round on Google and its come up with loads of ways the UK government has taken action against religious organisations (this is a link from wikipedia, if you trust it). All Faith organisations in the UK seem to be subject to governmental concern, much like all other organisations...
Might bebecause we're a more socialist country than the US, dunno. But yeh.

It's a bit ridiculous to have gay people adopt. It's unnatural. What kid would want gay 'parents'?

boltrig, have you not thought that maybe the fact that it was established 2000 years ago means that it may not actually have any relevance on stuff happening today?
hell music comes in and out of fashion and relevance in a matter of weeks these days, laws are changed continuously - thats part of what this type of board is about!
also christians, byt trying to say that gay people cannot adopt from them are basically asking for the right to discriminate against a group of people does that sounds right?

oh yeah, and if you can point me to a specific part of the bible ( and not that crappy new english version cos there is shitloads of interpretation in there) which actually states that a man and a woman have to be part of matrimony?
I aint found it yet meself.
and on the subject of interpretation you realise that it's been interpreted at least 100 times as it changed languages. hell chinese whispers fucks up after passing round 10 people so how can you count on it's validity anyway.

peace out.