more religious discrimination

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Once again, I have said nothing about racism. YOU are the one who insists on bringing it up. Seems like all you can do is create straw men and attack them. Hopefully a day will come where bigotry no longer exists in this world whatever the source. Evidently you believe that if the bigotry is based on "core religious ideals", it is "justified", unless of ...[text shortened]... you try to explain where you're getting hung up, I'll be able to help you through it.

Once again, I have said nothing about racism. YOU are the one who insists on bringing it up.

You brought up the KKK.

Hopefully a day will come where bigotry no longer exists in this world whatever the source. Evidently you believe that if the bigotry is based on "core religious ideals", it is "justified", unless of course the bigotry is not in line with your beliefs as with the KKK. Your hypocrisy is truly remarkable.

In my last post, I raised several arguments and posed several questions. Could you courteously reply to these rather than just employ this pointless ad hominem. Otherwise, I should really just equate you with Nazism and Stalinist communism who also believed that the state should dictate to religious organisations. If you are unsure what they are, I am present them here in concrete form:

1. To what extent do you admit the right to freedom of religion?
2. Do you believe that the state can compel Catholic hospitals to offer abortions or ministers to witness to same-sex marriages?
3. Can you name any legislatures which have not exempted religious organisations from anti-discrimination requirements?

Once again, "If 'religious organizations' or members thereof choose to engage in secular public services such as adoption, then they must set aside their bigoted and prejudicial views while doing so. If they cannot or will not, then they must be barred from providing such services.". Not sure what you can't understand about this. Maybe if you try to explain where you're getting hung up, I'll be able to help you through it.

I perfectly understand it. Here's the thing though, I do not believe you are divinely inspired and so, while perfectly able to comprehend your point, I will not immediately grant my assent without sufficient argument. You have not at all explained why the state should bar religious organisations from these services or why you consider them specifically secular. Do you think that the state can arbitrarily dictate to religious organisations what it can and cannot do? You have not explained either how this all can be consistent with the right to freedom of religion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr Sheila Matthews, 50 sacked because she refused, or rather abstained from voting in same sex cases for adoption. Please note her qualification, Doctor, serving no doubt for decades, her estimation as a qualified professional,

"I did not believe it is in the interests of the child to be adopted by a same-sex couple."

She added: "I have profes ...[text shortened]... professional judgement?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11761089

Neither quote even remotely mentions religion.

It doesn't take a religious person or a doctor to know that children growing up in a household where both partners share the same bed are subject to an unhealthy relationship. Everyone knows it's wrong. 99% of the human race doesn't share your demented ideas about sexuality. 99% of the human race considers homosexuality immoral.

You have obviously lost all your common sense.

Homosexuality is wrong. Anyone exposing children to it is nothing short of a pedophile. imo

Originally posted by josephw
Neither quote even remotely mentions religion.

It doesn't take a religious person or a doctor to know that children growing up in a household where both partners share the same bed are subject to an unhealthy relationship. Everyone knows it's wrong. 99% of the human race doesn't share your demented ideas about sexuality. 99% of the human race considers ho ...[text shortened]...
Homosexuality is wrong. Anyone exposing children to it is nothing short of a pedophile. imo

I did not condone anything, indeed if I did, where did i state that I approved, if i did not you will retract your statement, but man you got some serious issues, ill leave for the sharks shall I?

Originally posted by josephw
Neither quote even remotely mentions religion.

It doesn't take a religious person or a doctor to know that children growing up in a household where both partners share the same bed are subject to an unhealthy relationship. Everyone knows it's wrong. 99% of the human race doesn't share your demented ideas about sexuality. 99% of the human race considers ho ...[text shortened]...
Homosexuality is wrong. Anyone exposing children to it is nothing short of a pedophile. imo

Oh dear. 😞

Originally posted by lausey
Oh dear. 😞

i know, even i cringed at that post.

Originally posted by josephw
Neither quote even remotely mentions religion.

It doesn't take a religious person or a doctor to know that children growing up in a household where both partners share the same bed are subject to an unhealthy relationship. Everyone knows it's wrong. 99% of the human race doesn't share your demented ideas about sexuality. 99% of the human race considers ho ...[text shortened]...
Homosexuality is wrong. Anyone exposing children to it is nothing short of a pedophile. imo

If i had a gun and you were near me, i would happily shoot you.

Originally posted by josephw
Neither quote even remotely mentions religion.

It doesn't take a religious person or a doctor to know that children growing up in a household where both partners share the same bed are subject to an unhealthy relationship. Everyone knows it's wrong. 99% of the human race doesn't share your demented ideas about sexuality. 99% of the human race considers ho ...[text shortened]...
Homosexuality is wrong. Anyone exposing children to it is nothing short of a pedophile. imo

Stay away from my kids, dude.

Originally posted by John W Booth
Stay away from my kids, dude.

Grow up you babies.

Originally posted by josephw
Grow up you babies.

I'm serious, dude. If you was talking to my kids that creepy way, Id kick you out of my house.

Originally posted by josephw
Homosexuality is wrong. Anyone exposing children to it is nothing short of a pedophile. imo

Sheltering your kids from the actual world and exposing them to irrational bigotry is a lot more harmful then two dudes doing a better parenting job than you.

Originally posted by josephw
99% of the human race considers homosexuality immoral.

Maybe in your little world.

Originally posted by lausey
Maybe in your little world.

let us take Josephs statement and examine it,

he states that to him homosexuality in this context is unnatural, now that being the case, can anyone site any other reference in nature where two entities of the same sex cohabit in a sexual relationship and look after the young? If there is no point of reference then we must assume that yes indeed, he was telling the truth and that indeed it runs contrary to nature and on that basis must be deemed unhealthy, or at very least unnatural.

secondly he equates the practice of cohabitation with paedophilia. How can that be the case, for paedophilia is sex with a minor and is unrelated, never the less, one must ask the question, however unpopular and grotesque, is there a link between homosexuality and paedophilia? Take for example the thousands of cases of paedophilia in the churches of Christendom, in the vast majority of cases, the horrific deed was perpetrated on a male child, that begs the question, why should that be the case? we must now try to ascertain, was it the persons inclination towards paedophilia which drove them, or was it their inclination towards homosexuality which drove them, or was it a combination or indeed neither and/or some other agency?

i realise that this is fairly controversial and well to be honest not morally fashionable in the present climate, but then again, what's here today may be gone tomorrow and fashion victims will always be 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
let us take Josephs statement and examine it,

he states that to him homosexuality in this context is unnatural, now that being the case, can anyone site any other reference in nature where two entities of the same sex cohabit in a sexual relationship and look after the young? If there is no point of reference then we must assume that yes indeed, ...[text shortened]... runs contrary to nature and on that basis must be deemed unhealthy, or at very least unnatural.

Wikipedia does a good job on this one-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_homosexuality

edit: "Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same sex animals."

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...one must ask the question, however unpopular and grotesque, is there a link between homosexuality and paedophilia? Take for example the thousands of cases of paedophilia in the churches of Christendom, in the vast majority of cases, the horrific deed was perpetrated on a male child, that begs the question, why should that be the case? we must no ...[text shortened]... osexuality which drove them, or was it a combination or indeed neither and/or some other agency?

What's all this got to do with law abiding homosexuals, dude?

Originally posted by ua41
Wikipedia does a good job on this one-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_homosexuality

edit: "Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and [b]parenting among same sex animals."[/b]

i do not accept the humans are animals argument for it cannot be proven that animals are actually aware of what they are doing, any more than a dog which tries to make love to the end of a sofa knows that its an inanimate object. Also sexual behaviour in animals may be absolutely detrimental for humans. Lions for example may mate and then hunt down a rivals children, incest and polygamy are rarely beneficial for humans. Multiple sexual partners leads to all sorts of difficulties for humans also.