JCC Gay Adoption

It's wrong to give offense to anyone because it's ungentlemanly- if it's necessary to punch someone, then do that, but don't be rude.

 

Wow... pretty sure that this is the first time I've been guilty of derailing a thread into an atheist/christian talk... sorry, guys.

 

It was really inevitable given the subject matter.

 

EBB you're 10 ron pauls brave.

 

to be fair, i think the christian right are pretty much the only group who would argue against gay adoption so it's at least tangentially on topic.

 

Until I start publishing a racist newsletter in my name and pretend to know nothing about its contents, I don't have 1/1,000,000th the juevos Ron Paul does.

 

It's essentially doing no such thing. You're the one defining all Christians as sharing one point of view, judging religion by fundamentalist standards, exemplifying all the things that the 'New Atheists' are so often falsely criticised for.

You're chastising imaginary Christians for their imaginary private thoughts. It seems so hypocritical it leads me to suspect that you're having a laugh at atheism's expense. Good on you if that's the case.

 

First of all, u mad?

Second of all, no, I am explicitly not saying Christians have only one point of view. I am saying that people who believe what the small o orthodox churches teach have one viewpoint regarding damnation of souls. I don't see how you can argue against that. Your post comes out to only so much emotionalism.

It may be many things, but not hypocritical.

 

I expect it's one of those many things then.

 

I can't believe I've been derailed. Me! **** you, JC, **** you!

 

By me, no less... bizarro day.

 

Dead. To. Me.

Enjoy hell for eternity.

 

Did we decide if gay kids should be allowed to adopt hetero parents?

 

Heaven sounds like an incredibly boring place, so I'm fine with hanging out with the junkies and sodomites.

 

There's a DP joke in there.

 

There's probably a few.

 

Guise, sorry for being homophobic and trolling in this thread. I should be more accepting of gays...

 

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

I misread what he said and took back my comment 2 minutes later (before anyone had replied aamof).

 

i agree one shouldn't tar all christians by the actions and thoughts of their fundamentalists. most of my family are religious, but still great people, etc.

however you could argue that the "normal" christians, by maintaining a belief in god, inevitably lends credence to this thing (religion) that can, and is abused by others.

my girlfriends mother is a lovely person. she's catholic, but certainly not a "nutjob", nothing like it. she attends church, she prays, she gives money to the church. thus, in doing so, despite her being normal and friendly and someone i get along with, in some small way she justifies the church and helps to maintain its relevance/power in the modern world. and through that power is the promotion of policies that direcly or indirectly result in blatant sexism, homophobia, child abuse, and aids in africa, among many others.

that's not to say i hold that against her. it's just that it's possible for someone to be both normal yet in some way, perhaps not even willingly, a part of the problem. i guess this is kinda where EBB is coming from.

 

Why would I avoid "admitting" something everyone is quite well aware of? I have never believed or suggested that homosexuality is compatible with Christian ethical codes. Nor have I ever pretended that has any impact on how we make laws in a decidedly non-Christian nation state. I've been pretty avowedly uninterested in this entire sprawling debate, except when it triggers odd observations like the one from yesterday.

How would one ever tell that, given the insufficiently large pool of gay parents with adopt-tees from which to draw conclusions either way in an outcomes study? Especially since there are never likely to be large enough numbers until after a broad legalization, which you would suppose to predicate on the evidence of these selfsame studies. Outside speculation, it only really exists as a moral issue.

 

Do you really think that "everyone is well aware of it?"

It is possible that after legalization, a series of problems could arise after several years. That would be grounds for de-legalizing it.

 

And you shouldn't. She's a
Parishioner, not a priest.

 

I only mean to say that I've never been bashful about it. Everyone who has been a part of these threads or has asked me directly about it has received the same answer.

Yes, of course. I should have specified that it can only be a moral issue "right now."