Here’s an interesting nuance on the often popular freedom-of-speach discussion:
“Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, of Derby, said the city council did not want them to become foster carers because of their traditional views.
The couple said they were “doomed not to be approved” because of their views.
The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers.
The court heard that the couple withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child that a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.”
[Link to full story on the BBC News site]
The wording in bold is very specific, which adds a slight twist to the discussion; they haven’t said that they would tell a child in their care that a homosexual lifestyle is not aceptable, only that they wouldn’t tell them that it is – but this begs the question: Could this couple provide the full range of emotional support a child might require if that child wanted to come out as gay, bisexual or transgendered?
It also sets an interesting precedent in UK law: Anybody caring for a person who is a ward of the state cannot express homophobic views to them, and homophobes cannot care for wards of the state.
Hopefully one day the US might have a similar moment (assuming it hasn’t already) and force otherwise well-meaning Christian foster parents to address their religion’s attitudes to sexuality.
Update:
Just listened to this couple interviewed on Radio 4 – it was revealing but predictable:
“The [sexual orientation discrimination law] exists because of gay people, but Christians have to suffer for it? How is that fair? We just want a level playing field in society, we don’t want to be discriminated against as Christians. It’s a dark day for Christians.”
Let me count the ways…
1) Denying you the right to discriminate against other people is not discrimination against you.
2) I’d love Christianity to have a level playing field in society – rather than the position of privelige which it has enjoyed for centuries.
3) You don’t get to define “Christian”. Many Christians aren’t homophobes – they can still foster.
Refusing to offer loving support and acceptance to a child who struggles with their sexual identity is of course horrendous parenting and can be damaging, but that isn’t really limited to homphobes – pretty much anyone whose morality is grounded in an Abrahamic religion has a plethora of ways to screw up children with unnecessary burdens of guilt over simple things like masturbation. If we eliminate anyone who is not going to accept normal human development because of their faith I fear we are actually going to have a pretty shallow pool of foster carers available. I agree with the final sentence of this article that hopefully this sort of thing will force Christians to evaluate what’s more important to them, but I am pretty convinced that in most cases they will stick to their backward views rather than embrace an opportunity to do some good for someone less fortunate.
This people wanted to do some good, and maybe if they had the opportunity again they wouldn’t say that. I wonder wich are the odds for them having to deal with an homosexual child and if that’s a reason enough.
I mean, this is obviously a reason for them to be bad parents if the child is homosexual, maybe they could be good parents for other childs. Being religious could be bad for the child if he/she wanted to be a great scientist, but unless they are fundamentalists that wouldn’t be a problem for lots of childs, more when the alternative is state centers.
I have a question, does muslim people have problems in UK/US to foster or to adopt a child without muslim origins? Just curious.
It’s not just children who might be gay who they could potentially cause problems for – heterosexual children need to be raised understanding that their gay neighbours are not hell-bound sinners purely for existing and trying to be happy in life.
On one hand, if those people are not too religious, children can raise their own opinion about that.
On another hand that applies to every aspect of christian religion. Children need to be raised understanding that they have to do the best they can of this world, because there isn’t an afterlife.
Children should learn the importance of taking decision based on facts and proofs, and not on wishfull thinking. Children should learn that whatever other people do at their homes is not their problem. And they should learn that their morals are important for a life in society and develope their empathy, and not that they should behave because there is a creepy man looking at them every moment.
So, are we saying that theists shouldn’t be foster parents?
No, we’re saying those who think gays are an abomination shouldn’t be foster parents (not every homophobic twatwaffle is a god botherer, which is often forgotten in these types of discussion). Quakers for example have been lobbying for the gay marriages they perform to be legally recognised (the civil unions thing was a stupid fudge, all they had to say is “gay people can now get married, but there is no onus on religious organisations to perform such unions”) and a quaker couple would have no problem getting approval to foster, at least not on the religious beliefs front anyway.
I think the article needs expansion. It doesn’t say how they would treat such an incident at all. I mean plenty of families who are homophobic come to accept their homosexual children.
It need not be all bad.
Hopefully one day the US might have a similar moment (assuming it hasn’t already) and force otherwise well-meaning Christian foster parents to address their religion’s attitudes to sexuality.
I’ll believe it when I see it. I don’t know any christian, liberal or conservative, who toe this particular “mainstream christian belief” who wouldn’t interpret this as an attack by a secular state on their beliefs rather than a reason to carefully examine the validity and impact of their stance on the matter.
I love the ambiguity of the final paragraph in the article: ‘The Christian Legal Centre said the judgment “sends out the clear message that orthodox Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents”.’ Yes, it does; yes, they are.
My wife and I work in social services in the States and we have to deal with wacky theists all the time.
As someone else said, it isn’t only homophobes that could be damaging. Just take any of the major religions as an example and no couple who practices any of them should be allowed to adopt females.
Of course, I forgot to mention the rules and pressures they put on males as well that are ridiculous and damaging. So really, religious people couldn’t adopt at all.
Pentecostals are, imo, the strangest and most extreme sect of Christianity. Long hair and skirts past the ankles for women; always pants for men; speaking in tongues; church several days a week for hours at a time. I think the state is correct, Pentecostal parents are not fit to raise anyone.
I heard this on the news just after the verdict was given. The judge is quoted as saying that the right of children trumps the right to spout any bullshit you like. This is specifically about children in state care and who the state can place them with. Children with their natural families can still be subjected to homophobic crap. As for foster carers of other religions, I doubt this ruling will affect that many people, the UK is quite a wishy washy “everyone goes to heaven excepts murderers and rapists” type place. The number who believe that gays are teh evul is quite small and getting smaller (yes, even amongst traditionally conservative groups like muslims), although there has been a rise in homophobic attacks of late. There’s been a slight rise in douchebaggery in general though, which often happens in times of depression, so hopefully it will come back down again as things improve.
It is interesting, isn’t it? Basically, passing on naty-minded prejudice based on faith is child abuse if you do it to a child in care – this does rather lead me to conclude that it’s alos child abuse if you do it to one who isn’t in care…
Yes, pretty much. What annoys me (I think I said something similar on one of the forum threads) is that at the minute David Cameron is pushing this thing called the Big Society (BS for short, I have no idea whether it was intend to coincide with Bullshit, but that it does has provided much amusement) and part of this is moaning that people if a particular religion- muslims- need to integrate, that multiculturalism has failed, blah blah blah, and yet is doing the one thing that would entrench our differences further: allowing religious organisations to set up their own schools and entrance criteria and catchment areas, pretty much allowing parents to send their kids to schools where they will meet no one of another faith or none, other colours, other classes. This is just one of many stupid ideas in his BS, and I’m seriously having to restrain myself from having a massive rant about the whole thing!
Pingback: Foster parents defeated by the new Inquisition – Telegraph « Exercised to Discern
How do we know they are homophobes?
I think this is silly. It opens the door to all kinds of things. What about a family who eats too much red meat? It might damage a possible vegetarian kid’s emotional development.
Maybe atheist parents should not be allowed to take in kids because those kids might want to believe in God.
Seems like the writer is a Christphobe.
The meat eaters would be expected to provide vegetarian food and not make judgements about such a diet. There are strict guidelines, if a child has a religion or lifestyleit must be respected This couple have already said that they do not think homosexuality is acceptable, and demonstrated that they were unable to shelve that view if a gay teenager were to be housed with them. Thus they were taken off the register of foster carers. There’s no christophobia here, this couple holds such views because of their chosen religion. Quakers, who are christians and yet do not hold such views would still be able to foster. Child welfare comes before your rights to spout crap when that child is a ward of the state. As I have already said, you would still be able to spout crap at your own children should you choose to.
I’m trying to figure out how Mitchell doesn’t think that a couple who explicitly describe homosexuality as unnaceptable are homophobes; personally I suspect he’s trolling.
I could see not letting an openly gay child live with this family. But the article says that no child should in case they end up being gay. I don’t think that is fair. I see the reasoning, I just don’t agree with it.
I was taking more issue with the fact that the writer called them homophobes. Wasn’t necessary unless the writer knows something more.
Mitchell, we’re discussing a couple who have explicitly admitted that, in their opinion, homosexulity is an “unacceptable lifestyle”. THAT IS HOMOPHOBIC. What part of that is not homophobic? Seriously, how obtuse are you being here? And, as has been already pointed out, it is not right that any child in their care might be told that if they ask, regardless of their sexuality.
Definition of homophobia from wikipedia:
“Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.[1][2][3] Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation. In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”"
The family’s statement was that “We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.” That doesn’t mean they were going to tell a small child that the the practice of homosexuality was a bad thing.
I hate to tell you this, but religious people can be politic when necessary; on top of that, what the article is describing doesn’t seem to be homophobia at all.
“The family’s statement was that “We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.” That doesn’t mean they were going to tell a small child that the the practice of homosexuality was a bad thing.”
Of course it does. It also makes the first part of their statement a lie.
I call bullshit. You can’t just say “of course I’m right.” That’s not an argument.
Did you even read the OP?
“The wording in bold is very specific, which adds a slight twist to the discussion; they haven’t said that they would tell a child in their care that a homosexual lifestyle is not aceptable, only that they wouldn’t tell them that it is”
They may not say the words “it is evil”, but any child asking (why? But why? Then why? Who says? Why?) will understand that’s exactly what they’re saying.
Because someone does not believe homosexuality is good does not mean they hate homosexuals.
I am against my mom drinking too much. But I don’t hate her.
You have to remember where their idea that homosexuality is ‘not good’ is coming from – from a book that tells them gay people should be stoned to death and will burn in hell. Again, all that it takes for this supposedly neutral stance to become damaging is for the child to ask ‘why?’. Not to mention the fact that it is simply unacceptable to raise children with the caveat that love and support may be withheld from them if they turn out to be gay.
I have heard that sentence before, like in “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Your metaphore is bullshit. Your mom may need help and willpower to quit drinking, homosexuality is not a choice.
“But the article says that no child should in case they end up being gay. I don’t think that is fair. I see the reasoning, I just don’t agree with it.”
It’s not just homosexuality though. If you’re unwilling to bend on that, because of your (interpretation of) faith, then you will be unwilling to bend for those who, for example, don’t think Jesus was the son of god or provide a supportive environment for a 15 year old and her newborn. The fact is, there are so few “christian” children in need of fostering that would be able to fit into their world view, so they were taken off the list entirely. The judge simply backed the social workers’ position and the current guidelines. I’ve been in foster care, and it was hard enough without worrying that the family I was living with was judging me
That is a stretch. Implying that a Christian family would not be accepting to someone not willing or ready to receive Jesus as Lord is very irrational thinking. Maybe a Christian family just wants to give love and hope to a child, along with education, food, shelter, etc.
Right now I am staying with a Christian family (because I moved) and they just had a teenager staying with them who was NOT Christian, stole from them several times and lied repeatedly. They DID NOT try to indoctrinate him, blackmail him or anything else. They just loved on him and tried to give him hope.
I think you might have a negative view of Christians that is blocking your objectivity. Am I right?
“Maybe a Christian family just wants to give love and hope to a child, along with education, food, shelter, etc.”
If they want to do that they won’t try to cling to the right to judge and harm children who may be homosexual or give heterosexual children the idea that it’s ok to judge homosexuals because there’s something wrong with them.
“I think you might have a negative view of Christians that is blocking your objectivity. Am I right?”
I think you’re projecting. Your website is called Christ Creds and you are complaining about other people’s objectivity?
You are assuming that the subject would even come up. I doubt this couple is going out looking for young, gay, foster kids to convert. It is fair to say that most kids are not gay. So I doubt the couple is gonna interrogate them to find out. That is unfair to think that this couple or any couple thinks like that.
If the topic of homosexuality came up, like if the kid asked or heard teaching at church or something. The couple could explain what they believe and if the child is not receptive, so be it. You act like they will get the church folk together and force him to comply.
I am a Christian yes, I see things through a Christian lens. But I don’t presume to know who you are, what you believe or why you believe it just because you disagree with me. There is a big difference here.
@Mitchell: the child would not (necessarily) hear about homosexuality at church – which is a pretty well managed and controlled environment. They’ll hear about it at school, on the TV, in the papers, on the Internet. That child should have a straightforward, clear, and balanced explanation – without any judgement as to it being right or wrong.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did you really miss the mark that widely?
I think what he is trying to say is “Not All Christians are Fundie”. It’s a crying shame if we call them all fundie when a fair few of them are rather nice people. I am sure there are many pentecostal christians who only weakly believe in the nonsense tennants of their church and only pay lip service to the church.
What if the kids have another religion? What if they are atheist? Do we start matching kids to adoptions by ludicrous ideas such as homeopathy families? Ultimately these kids need a loving family and most people have some idiotic belief. If we rule all the idiots out then there won’t be anyone to adopt.
People have stupid beliefs all the time. The kid may be better off with them than without in a foster home where he does not get any attention. The article is vague on what these individuals would do if they came into contact with gays.
I am a pentecostal Christian but I don’t hate anyone. Many believe like me. It is what the bible teaches.
I just thought that labeling them “homophobe” was silly, unfounded, and certainly not beneficial to healthy dialogue in an already heated political climate.
It seems like the original poster thinks that Christians are only interested in indoctrinating the kids rather than providing a loving home.
Im sure we had parents that did not agree with us smoking, partying, skipping school and getting in trouble but that does not mean they don’t love us.
Being gay is NOT MISBEHAVING. It is BEING ONESELF.
You seriously need to STFU about things you clearly don’t understand. You are a pentecostal SHEEP. You hate the people who your pastor tells you to hate and you don’t even read your own Bible.
Seriously, STFU.
Now that I’ve got that out of my system, let me add:
(1) The Bible also calls wearing silk and linen together an abomination.
(2) Gays have dealt with enough pain and suffering and don’t need anymore because of people like you runnin’ your mouth.
(3) Just because other people believe as you do doesn’t make it right.
(4) When did you choose to be straight?
(5) Negative attitudes towards gay people is OPPRESSION. Period.
(6) Science is pretty clear that sexualization of the brain is a natural phenomenon that occurs during development. All you’ve got is your idiotic 3,000 year old speculation.
(1) I will assume that you are aware of the New Testament. Levitical law is no longer enforced or even applied.
(2) Jews (religious people) have suffered pain too. They don’t need you running YOUR mouth against people of faith. And I have not said anything against gays.
(3) And just because people don’t believe as I do doesn’t make me wrong.
(4) We would not find a common ground here so will leave it alone.
(5) I agree. I haven’t had a negative attitude towards gays. I treat them as I would anybody else. But how did you treat me? Is that acceptable because I am Christian?
(6) Science never gets it wrong.
BTW, the bible said the world was round LONG before any scientist.
“BTW, the bible said the world was round LONG before any scientist.”
That’s stupid.
The GREEKS figured out that the world was round while the bronze age goat herders in the OT thought that pi was 3 and that the East was infinitely far from the West.
Like I said, you don’t read your own Book.
I just had to pick at this one… Even if the Old Testament is no longer in affect, what about the passages where women are told to be silent in the church? Condemned for jewelry and vain adornment? These are New Testament examples of bias and ignorant standards, and I can find you the particular passages if needed.
“(1) I will assume that you are aware of the New Testament. Levitical law is no longer enforced or even applied.”
Not true. Jesus says that not one letter of the old law is to be swept away.
“(2) Jews (religious people) have suffered pain too. They don’t need you running YOUR mouth against people of faith. And I have not said anything against gays.”
You call other people hysterical, then you come out with this? You are comparing condemning homophobia to the various attempts in history to wipe out the Jews? Attempts by Christians, I might add, who were backed up with their hate-filled book and deference to church authority.
“(3) And just because people don’t believe as I do doesn’t make me wrong. ”
It also doesn’t make it your right to force it on children who are brought to you to be cared for.
“(4) We would not find a common ground here so will leave it alone.”
Coward. You are afraid to even think about that question, aren’t you?
“(5) I agree. I haven’t had a negative attitude towards gays. I treat them as I would anybody else. But how did you treat me? Is that acceptable because I am Christian?”
It is acceptable to call you out and condemn your defence of homophobia. And of course you have a negative attitude toward gays – you consider it a ‘wrong’ lifestyle, a point of view informed by a church and its book that calls for not only the hate but the killing of homosexuals.
“(6) Science never gets it wrong.”
Of course it is, the difference is science can admit it. Science does not claim to be dictated by the divine and therefore never changing.
Who is my pastor? I don’t hate anyone. How do you know how much I read my bible?
You are being hysterical. I am being polite and not calling names.
Sure I am being a little sarcastic in my tone and I apologize for that but it doesn’t mean my views aren’t valid.
Question, can someone be against homosexuality but not a homophobe?
Your views are invalid. Period. Quit runnin’ your mouth.
Oh, and I forgot to add:
(7) The bible condones rape, slavery, and genocide, so it isn’t exactly a moral paragon.
How are they invalid?
“Question, can someone be against homosexuality but not a homophobe?”
Can someone be against black people without being a racist?
This is good news all round. Kiddies too young to form a rational opinion on the religion thing will not be exposed to this couple’s nonsense beliefs. The Abrahamic religions are totally responsible for birthing and fostering hatred towards gay people. If these silly BS faiths did not exist, there would be no overt discrimination towards gay people. Keep twits like these two out of the loop. Go the Judge!
Tell em dude!! We need rational thinkers who want to “weed out” the imbeciles and destroy the negro!! You know, people like Margaret Sanger. Eugenics is the open-minded way!
Lets get rid of those “lower human types” Entwicklung!!! Entwicklung!!!
*smiley
You’re kind of an idiot, aren’t you?
He’s an ass, too.
Im sorry, i was being a bit of a sarcastic jerk. But these posts are so angry and unmerited towards Christians.
We hear all the time how Christians label people and all that but isn’t that what is happening here? I thought non-religious people were the open-minded ones? Tolerant and respectful? I didn’t come her to cause trouble. I was just bored actually.
But I noticed a double standard and some hypocrisy so I pointed it out.
How does anyone in here know what is in my heart or mind? But because I am Christian I am judged by the bad examples of my faith. If we look for bad hard enough we will find it pretty much anywhere. People should be judged by their merits not their skin color, religion, political party or other. In my opinion.
Not all Christians are as you see on the news. Not necessarily talking to you personally, just in general. thx
Me being intolerant of your intolerance toward gay people isn’t intolerant.
Go ahead and think about that for a minute.
You need to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax96cghOnY4
Actually, Jesus never preached against Gays. I have relatively little bone to pick with what’s in the gospels, even if I do think the miracles are gross exaggerations and legend-building. It’s just most of the stuff that surrounds the gospels… you know, the rest of the bible. ;) Where Paul condemns homosexuals and pagans, where the church becomes institutionalized, and all that good stuff.
Jefferson Bible, ftw!
You are just name calling. Christians = Christ followers. What did Jesus teach?
I can quote Margaret Sanger all day, does that mean planned parenthood is incapable of good?
No, I’m not.
You said, “Because someone does not believe homosexuality is good does not mean they hate homosexuals.”
Yes is DOES mean they hate homosexuals. It means they think that who that person is at their core is WRONG and SINFUL and UNACCEPTABLE.
That is the very definition of hate.
No, you are wrong. I don’t hate gays, period!
Riiight… you don’t hate the sinner, just the “sin”.
Yeah. M’kay.
1. Because you communicated what you think about this issue.
2. You are being criticized for the things you say you believe and/or agree with.
3. If you say something we disagree with, we’re free to point out what that is.
4. Religious beliefs are in the category of “merit.” It’s optional. It’s something you willfully believe in, it’s taught to you, and you should be judged for it. Tolerance of religions – why should people be tolerant you have fantasies and cause you to say ignorant things without thinking through? You’re free to believe what you like until it affects everyone else or anyone else. If it’s nonsense, we’ll call you on it. That’s the same as judging someone on their merits or flaws. That’s not like being intolerant of you being a particular race.
And to clarify or summarize, I’m not directly criticizing all of Christianity. I’m criticizing this faulty belief that you have that affects or can affect someone else. I’m criticizing you for thinking a delusion over a book you think god wrote, and the lack of critical thinking YOU have for just going along with the book on its authority rather than use your effing head. You want to claim persecution for being in lockstep with a delusional crowd, that you’re being criticized just for being a Christian, no, you’re being criticized because you’ve said ugly things and you don’t even recognize it because you’re too in love with god, who’s imaginary. There’s absolutely no reason for you to believe these ugly things, and no reason to rely on this book or god so you can know what it wants, or rely on it to tell you what you think. You CAN and ARE being criticized for that.
There’s nothing wrong with homosexuals, but there is something wrong with people whose idea of caring for an orphaned child is to hate them for who they are or teach them to hate people for who they are. Is your character ok? I don’t think that it is.
(1) So because I stuck up for the foster carers I am homphobic? I was pointing out that just because I have views on one topic does not mean I am a “sheep,” “hate people my pastor tells me to hate,” or “don’t read my bible.”
What do you have to say about that?
(2) It seems I am being criticized for being Christian. Most of LRA’s attacks were based in assumptions.
(3) Of course, that is fair. But it ISN’T fair to assume things about me.
I am free to point out something I disagree with too?
(4) This would be an argument of what qualifies as “smart.” If you believe and I am not saying you do, that anyone who believes in God is not smart then we would be wasting time to discuss anything.
I don’t believe I said anything ugly. It certainly wasn’t deliberate. But if I did say something ugly but wasn’t intentional don’t you think I should get the benefit of the doubt? I mean calling me names (not you) and belittling my intelligence isn’t helpful… Maybe talk to me and try to make me understand my folly. Don’t assume because I am Christian I am not thoughtful or completely stubborn. Not talking about you, just in general.
I guess I didn’t derive that the foster couple wanted to hate anyone. Perhaps in the short time a foster kid was there. The subject would not even come up.
Like if a 5 yr old kid was there for a year. etc etc.
You compared gayness to other “bad” behaviors, like kids acting up (“smoking, partying, skipping school and getting in trouble”). How is that assuming on my part? You were clear.
The fact that you made this comparison shows what you really are… a person who can’t grasp that being gay is to some people what being female is to me. It is part of who they are. To say otherwise is discrimination and it is WRONG.
LRA, because I believe homosexuality is bad. I never denied that. I am saying that just because I believe something to be bad does not mean I don’t love or respect the person doing it.
You will tell me that in doing so I have to think the gay is bad because that is who they are. And that may be (eventually). I mean if I had a friend who was an alcoholic I would and would not quit drinking, I would not be friends with him anymore. But I would still treat him respectuflly and with love. Same with a gay friend. I would not be friends with them anymore but I would not hate them, or treat them as less than me.
Even if I wanted to hate a homosexual or anybody else, I cannot. I am told to what? “Love my enemies and to do good to those…..”
I don’t hate gays or anyone else. And to be honest, I really just don’t care. I lived in and currently live near, one of the most gay friendly towns in the country (Aspen). I know this isn’t proof but if I hated gays I would probably want to avoid them.
I was former actor and model and used to get hit on by gays all the time. It wasn’t a big deal. I told them I was straight. I wasn’t mean.
YOU JUST COMPARED GAY PEOPLE TO ALCOHOLICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeebus, you are dense!
Might I point out that the comparison to alcohol implies that being gay is a conscious choice? At no point do I recall making a decision to like girls (I’m a fella), and I imagine it’s rather the same for gays.
I also think your decision to not be friends with someone who makes a choice you disagree with shows a shallowness of commitment to friendship. If a friend of mine makes bad choices, I would try to be there for them, and let them know I’m still a friend… this is likely the time they need it most. If it gets to the point where they are draining and using me (consciously or unconsciously), I might have to break off friendship… but simply because I disagree with bad choices they’re making? Then it would be unfair to have ever called myself their friend.
Mitchell, you’re a homophobe who’s trying to square his cognitive dissonance because you know that homophobia is a negative trait. That is horribly, horribly obvious – but you aren’t going to win anybody over who doesn’t have your cognitive dissonance.
Alcoholism has a strong genetic component.
Dependency has a strong genetic component, but going down that slippery slope is not the same thing as a fundamental state of being like sexuality. Not to mention alcoholism has known and serious medical and social consequences for all involved, while homosexuality only has consequences in the imaginations of bigots.
Being blue eyed has a strong genetic component too.
This is a rather complex issue, but I find it helpful to consider it as akin to racial or gender discrimination. What if a couple applied for adoption, but were unwilling to teach their children that blacks are equal to whites? A deeply harmful ideology has the potential to be instilled. However, I do see the argument that perhaps the children would benefit from having a home, care, food, etc. It’s something of a “lesser of two evils” argument. This isn’t a perfect world, and children need care, even if the caregivers have issues. I think the issue would be better addressed by something like the previously proposed child-rights act. Children would have the right to choose their own religion, parents couldn’t physically impact the child as punishment (i.e. spanking), etc. Such rights would at least be a step towards preventing parents from indoctrinating children, biological or adopted. The act itself is not without issues, however, as it would disallow the right to home-educate, which I am a strong proponent of, so long as standards are met.
Let me also say that I have a strong bias against Pentecostals, having had unpleasant experiences being raised as one. Some of them can be nice people, but their ideologies are in general so fundamental…
LRA
“Riiight… you don’t hate the sinner, just the “sin”.
Yeah. M’kay.”
It’s impossible?
Look there is too much heated passion right now. I will stop commenting on this thread or just leave entirely. I only stumbled onto this blog because I googled a person I once knew and ended up on this site eventually. I didn’t search it out.
If you don’t understand why I’m upset, then you haven’t thought about this long enough.
You might as well come on here and defended foster parents who are part of the Nazi party.
I just don’t see how you believe that it is impossible to hate sin but not the sinner. I sin, I don’t hate myself.
On another note. What do you think of this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
You can respond another time on that.
I don’t think we will get very far on this current argument. I don’t know if you are gay or not but I don’t hate you.
So you what to know what I think of an idiot that thinks that marriage is only for procreating?
And I would argue that if you really believe that you deserve to go to hell for your sins enough to buy into the whole suffering savior thing…. you *do* actually hate yourself.
LRA, from the gov standpoint yes. They are a business. They make investments just like any other business. From their standpoint, procreation is insuring more taxpayers. Since homosexual couples cannot procreate they don’t deserve the benefits set aside for the specific purpose of promoting procreation.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Clearly you don’t know what DINKS are and the crazy amount of taxes they pay.
The government gives people tax breaks for kids…. more kids equals less taxes.
Herr derr derr!!!
In some states the kids grow up to be adults. They get jobs and earn an income. But then the gov takes most of it. That is called taxation. More people=more taxes. Gov likey.
They give the same tax breaks if you are adoptive parents. The marriage arrangement does not have to provide biological children in order for the state to allow marriage. In an archaic sense, 2 adults sharing household duties and provide the nurture, care, feeding, and training of minors – procreating being a biological function, one way seems to be most popular and convenient. However, it’s not the only way, and the government doesn’t differentiate, and doesn’t forbid anyone marriage rights if they can’t or don’t procreate, just that they can’t if they are the same sex, because idiots like you do vote. Gay marriage hurts nothing about straight uptight biblical Christian procreative marriage except defy your authority with respect to marriage, because you deserve no authority.
Nicely put.
So what you’re saying is, people who can’t have kids (a straight couple I mean) shouldn’t be allowed to marry either? I mean, they can’t produce more tax payers so let’s not allow them the right to marry either. By your logic it makes sense.
Give it up.
So couples who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry. Hmm…that would mean straight infertile couples and probably straight older couples too. Nice logic Mitchell.
I know I’m not LRA, but if I may offer a point… I find it ludicrous that anyone would attempt to argue the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of marriage based on its benefits to the state. When one proposes marriage in a modern day and age, the purpose is hardly (if ever) to benefit the state, it is an expression of love. If we begin to consider what best benefits the state, we move towards elimination of the elderly, the sick, etc.
Right, it is about love! So we don’t need the state. Homesexuals can love and not need state approval.
The secular argument was that the “state” benefits from procreation. That is why the state gives benefits to “marriage” because it promotes procreation. Or did at one point. But we have drifted far from what it was.
BTW, I responded to another post of yours by pasting your post in my response but forgot to quote you.
Hope it is understandable.
I believe this is a bit misleading. Homosexuals can love and not need state approval, but so can straight couples. Proper governing requires equal rights for all, not state-chosen privileges for some. Either everyone should be allowed to marry, or no one. Personally, I don’t care to have my rights taken away, so I’m voting to give other folks the same rights. ;)
“Right, it is about love! So we don’t need the state. Homesexuals can love and not need state approval.”
Yet straight people get the same approval. The thing is gay weddings have occured for close to a decade without a hitch. Its just that these weddings are not recognised even by common law. If you stop providing benefits for marriages you actually see a drop in marriages because then being married is a liability. People just have weddings and don’t sign the register.
“The secular argument was that the “state” benefits from procreation. That is why the state gives benefits to “marriage” because it promotes procreation. Or did at one point. But we have drifted far from what it was.”
People are a credit to the state if they are happy, content and able to work. The more inclusive a society is the more individuals it possesses that can work towards it. Places like the USA are built on an idea not an ethnicity, they are stronger for it. The UK and many european nations are struggling to become something like the USA where the idea is that people are american by ideology rather than ethnicity.
Your logic goes down a dark path. Not all people born are a credit to society. A lot of poor people have kids that don’t end up contributing. A lot of sick kids are born who need care. A lot of unfit parents have kids… Your logic goes down the road where we declare these individuals unworthy of care because they do not benefit the state.
A large chunk of straight christians are poor and often on various state based income. Are they credits to the state merely because of their ability to produce warm bodies?
All people are a credit to the state because of the potential within each of us to achieve. For a every ten that work maybe you get one or two dead beats.
The marriage laws are not about promoting the procreation of children. That would be the tax breaks and child support available for parents of children.
The argument put forth in that article is essentially that it’s wrong and bad for society that marriage has become about love (well, hopefully, anyway) and not procreation. It’s not really a secular argument against gay marriage as much as a complaint that marriage is not what it was – a business transaction, family alliance and generator of hands to help run the farm and/or inherit the family wealth. I suspect the author was just trying to put nicer words to the feeling that gay relationships are icky (and apparently poly relationships are even ickier, according to his concluding paragraph).
Whether or not you think that is wrong, western society now defines marriage as a partnership between two people who express love towards each other, irrespective of fertility or possible fertility. If you want to argue that we should go back to marriage as it was, go for it – but in order to make that definition anything other than outright homophobic, you _must_ also _specifically_ ban marriages of known infertile people, older couples and those who declare that they want to marry but not have children. The author’s excuses for not covering them are weak in the extreme and I suspect understated the frequency of older couples who marry these days. It would be easy to put a clause to that effect into the relevant laws if excluding non-fertile couples, rather than gay couples, was the real agenda.
I was about 5 when I had my first crush on a guy… Luke Skywalker (and also Speed Racer a little.) Embarrassing but true. I can only imagine how it would have been to grow up feeling like I was dirty and wrong and sinful for something that is perfectly natural.
Hehe – Luke Skywalker was my sister’s first love, too!
Well Luke Skywalker was nearly his sister’s first love too…
Might I point out that the comparison to alcohol implies that being gay is a conscious choice? At no point do I recall making a decision to like girls (I’m a fella), and I imagine it’s rather the same for gays.
I also think your decision to not be friends with someone who makes a choice you disagree with shows a shallowness of commitment to friendship. If a friend of mine makes bad choices, I would try to be there for them, and let them know I’m still a friend… this is likely the time they need it most. If it gets to the point where they are draining and using me (consciously or unconsciously), I might have to break off friendship… but simply because I disagree with bad choices they’re making? Then it would be unfair to have ever called myself their friend.
Morpheus, I believe homosexuality is a choice. We just have different views so it is probably not profitable to continue.
That was what I was referring to. If they are not willing to change ie. quit drinking or whatever, then I could not be their friend. Because it would be like condoning it.
I believe that a good “friend” would be there till the point of enabling and then leave. The addict has to know that there are consequences for their actions. If and when they sober up, I welcome them back with open arms. Never stopped loving them, just couldn’t be a part of their choice.
Sometimes love will risk a friendship in order to help the “friend.”
What do you think would happen to them? What do you think you are helping them fix? Because you think it’s a choice, you think you’re loving your friend to get him to see things your way? And then have the nards to back off the friendship because they won’t see they need to change? You’re an asshoIe.
This Mitch doesn’t seem to get that the more he blathers, the deeper the hole he digs for himself.
What if a woman is being abused, lied to, cheated on, etc etc. Should she stay in marriage? I mean a “friend” is not as serious as the vows of marriage. Til death do us part.
WHA???? Now you are comparing gay people to domestic abuse?
You are a troll. I’m done.
I was comparing alcoholics. that was what that other guy questioned me on.
You’re deluded. You’re a meddler. If a person is gay, they are not doing anything to you. They’re not using you, there’s nothing to get out of the friendship there. They’re not beating you, or borrowing money from you to be gay. If you are emotionally abused by their being gay, it’s because you have no sense at all. A book sez. You imagine they are going to hell and this torments you that you have to draw the line and not be friends with them anymore. You think they chose their homosexuality over the friendship as an abuse to you – YOU’RE ABUSING THEM! You’re meddling over some delusion that your invisible friend exists and everyone who doesn’t follow the rules is choosing to disobey. Look, man, you take that book you think “god” wrote and CHOOSE which parts matter and disobey which parts you justify god means that you may. And threaten people! Call them abusing you, using you, threatening something within you, if you remain friends with them.
It’s not just a difference of opinion. There’s no reason for me to tolerate your differences because they cause you to be irrational and to say irrational things, to damage people, actually.
How on earth would your friend being gay be causing damage to your relationship or personal health and safety, as domestic abuse does?
I would argue that if you let your friends use, abuse and manipulate you then you are a bigger a@@hole for letting them do it. Because if you don’t care enough about them to stop it then you never cared about them to begin with. Or you might just be a moron. Not calling you a moron, hypothetical.
AGAIN WITH THE WRONG COMPARISON!!!
Ass ain’t the half of it!
Next thing you know he’ll be telling us why blacks and whites shouldn’t marry…
Lets find out what Margaret Sanger thinks?
Who gives a damn what Margaret Sanger thinks. We live in 2011, not f*cking 1920. Thought evolves, ya know.
Feminist thought has *actually evolved* since the turn of the last century, you jack*ss.
And not to mention it was common thought for the time since Galton’s theories were very strong across the world. I am currently reading a book about the man who was slated to break the 4 minute mile during WW2.
He was a 5000 metre runner with great promise who was sent to the berlin olympics aged 19. He didn’t win but boy did he show them the skills. He was nearly sterilised prior to this for criminality since he learnt to run fast because he was a petty thief. The black swan period of american eugenics is a stain on it’s history.
Remember Darwin himself had a lot to say about hybrid vigour.
“Lets find out what Margaret Sanger thinks?”
That is utterly beyond the pale. You wonder why people weren’t polite to you?
Who cares what you *believe*?
This is about FACTS.
This is about people’s lives. After all, you said,
“Right, it is about love! So we don’t need the state. Homesexuals can love and not need state approval. ”
So, now we will take away your right to marry, ‘K?
Lol, okay. That won’t bother me. Honestly. I don’t need the government all up in my business. Just like I don’t want the gov all up in my church. Churches should have nothing to do with 501 c3.
And just for the record. I believe Christians should stay out of politics. I don’t even vote. It is not our mission. God is not trying to build a Christian nation. If you want to change the government you have to change its governed. imo
And I don’t like your church all up in my government or in my personal life. Now that you’ve compared gay people to alcoholics, are you going to tell me that women who seek abortions are murderers?
Unbelievable.
Well, your gov happens to be mine too. But as I said, I personally don’t believe Christians should mess around with politics, so you have to take it up with the ones who do.
That is off topic and I am sure we are both tired. I am anyway.
Please provide reasoning for why you think homosexuality is a choice. Simply because gays could choose to have straight sex? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t hold… I could choose to have gay sex, I just really, really don’t want to. :P
You beat me to it :D
I didn’t choose to be straight. Its just a fact. I was born that way.
I noticed I didn’t respond to some of the people addressing me. The setup is a bit confusing for me.
But anyway, I apologize for my sarcasm and anything offensive. I probably won’t return to this site. Unless there is a political discussion other than marriage, abortion, etc.
Good night, all of you. Good work. Sleep well. I’ll most likely kill you in the morning.
:)
How dare you blaspheme the Princess Bride. Because as we all know, the wedding in that movie was all about procreation and love…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8
>:(
He was talking about maywidge, I am talking about marriage. There is a difference.
;p thanks for the laugh.
Kodie, I thought you were talking about alcoholic friends. That was what I mentioned most.
Who was talking about alcoholics? This thread is about homophobes.
QFT, Kodie, QFT.
Ah! Fair enough. Atleast someone went and checked if these guys were complete jerks rather than misunderstood individuals.
My bad! *picks up pitchfork and burning torch and joins the mob*
Hello.
I think it is just best for me to bow out of this. I am sorry if I offended anyone, it was not intentional.
I posted that secular argument to show that it wasn’t only a religious argument. I never said I supported it. I should have been more clear about that. Plus it was a bit off topic.
I compared alcoholics to gay because I DO think that homosexuality is a choice. I am entitle to think this way whether it is fact or not. And if you think my view is wrong, backwoods, hateful or other, then it might have been better to just try and talk to me humanely rather than assuming things and calling me names. Don’t get me wrong, I am not offended or anything like that. I really don’t care. Just saying it would be better for the cause to try and politely get to the heart of my thinking. And if you can change me, great! If not, agree to disagree and leave it be.
I think I entered the site a little to strong and or sarcastic. None of you knew/know me so to you I could have been some punk looking for a fight. I take some of the blame for the heated debate last night.
So, I don’t think there is anymore to say. It would only get down to an argument for or against the existence of God and I am sure we have already done that a few times.
Take care, I MAY pop in if there is something posted that doesn’t have anything to do with religion. Prob not but who knows.
So, see you all later.
“I compared alcoholics to gay because I DO think that homosexuality is a choice.”
You know, sometimes people get hung up on this idea of “choice” when it comes to someone’s sexuality, and you know what…… IT DOESN’T FRAKKING MATTER.
If someone chooses to be gay…. um, so what? Good for them. I chose my career, my spouse, where I live, what car I drive, and my non-theism. I don’t think I “chose” to be heterosexual; but if someone justs decides “hey, that gay thing sounds good to me, I’m gonna go do that”…. good for them! This is America pal, we can choose to be whatever we want and no god-bot has any right to stop us.
“This is America pal”
Actually it was England, but your sentiment is quite right. While homosexuality is, at best, clearly not an entirely free choice, if someone were to make that choice it should not matter. It does not make them a bad person any more than ‘choosing’ to prefer lemon over lime does.
But Lady Gaga says “Baby, you were born this way,” so it must matter some…
:P
Thank you, coffeejedi. I’ve been thinking the very same thing for quite a while. It really doesn’t matter, does it? The choice does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.
I think that many Christians choose to repress their own feelings of sexuality, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or both. I guess this is driven by family-circle upbringing or what they hear in church. As such, they really do see homosexuality as a choice – because they have chosen to ignore any such feelings (coming from what they are) in favour of what they have learnt.
“I posted that secular argument”
What secular argument? That wasn’t a secular argument, it was just trying to hide the Bible under a rug. Unfortunately the Bible is pretty thick and I can still see the lump.
Well in England we do pretty much the same things as people do in America except with tea and bangers and mash. And butties. Also we say things that make you guys feel uncomfortable like “Can I bum a fag off you?” (Can I take one of your cigarettes) which causes all you yanks to blush and stutter. It’s very fun.
“I compared alcoholics to gay because I DO think that homosexuality is a choice. I am entitle to think this way whether it is fact or not. And if you think my view is wrong, backwoods, hateful or other, then it might have been better to just try and talk to me humanely rather than assuming things and calling me names. Don’t get me wrong, I am not offended or anything like that. I really don’t care. Just saying it would be better for the cause to try and politely get to the heart of my thinking. And if you can change me, great! If not, agree to disagree and leave it be.”
Even if it were a choice it is not a harmful one. Alcohol causes deaths in other people, homosexuality is no more deadly than heterosexuality. They cannot be compared. Even if being gay is a choice, it causes no more harm than heterosexuality.
It’s simple. Do you like having sex with blonde’s or brunettes? It’s just like that only replace hair colour with men. It makes no different if you were born gay or you decide to have sex with men, it just matters that you have the right to do so free from persecution by people quoting a book that can also state that I, as an atheist do not have the right to get married because I don’t believe in their god.
I think we have to draw a line between gays and the ones you and coffee jedi say “choose to be gay”.
The first is not a choice, but a given sexual preference. You do not choose what arouses you sexually.
The second is someone choosing to have sex with ppl of the same sex. Its not being gay. And I guess most ppl won’t do it anyway (except bisexuals of course ^^),
I don’t think there are lots of ppl choosing to have intimate relationships with ppl of the same sex.
So, having already said earlier in the discussion that you never CHOSE to be straight, you think people CHOOSE to be gay? Despite that fact that every single gay person on the entire surface of the planet Earth says otherwise. One in six people are gay – that’s a billion people who disagree with your prejudiced, uneducated, thoughtless opinion. Add about three billion more for straight people who just think you and everyone of your stripe is an asshole
And, just to echo earlier sentiment: Even if sexuality was a matter of choice (which it isn’t), SO WHAT?! What the hell would it have to do with you either way? If two men fall in love (I don’t remember ever “choosing” to fall in love, how about you?) and want to live as a couple and do all the things that being a couple entails, or if two men meet and are sexually attracted to each other (again, I don’t ever remember “choosing” to be sexually attracted or not to anybody) and decide to have a sexual encounter, so what? What the hell gives you the right to call it wrong or to judge them for it? What gives you the right to define what marriage is? Absolutely NOTHING.
What really irks me is the clear admission to believe whatever he wants *regardless* of the facts!
Talk about arrogance! What a jerk!
Actually Custador, he didn’t even say that he never chose to be straight. He flaked out on that one completely.
You *may* pop in? Please, don’t do anybody here any favors.
Custador. I am pretty sure one in six people are not gay… It’s around 6 to 10 percent of people since the studies produce wildly differing results. I think you are confusing that with the stat that roughly one in six people have had a same sex experience but that’s part of growing up to be interested in genitalia and experiment. It’s a lot smaller as a number but it’s still a sizeable amount of people.
And it’s what people identify themselves as mate. If a man despite all that he feels makes the choice to be straight irrespective of his own desires then we can feel sorry for him but we have no rights to condemn him for his choice. If a straight guy wants to have sex with men then why should we even care?
That being said, I do agree with you on the homophobia bit.
omfsm
Fits the current subject like a glove. Don’t let the title of the video fool you ^^.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o
Irony is that, if the ‘traditionalist Christians’ had left the gay community alone, no one would even be bothered about views about homosexuality when it came to parenting. It would depend purely on luck whether your foster parents’ accepted you (if you were gay), just as it would depend purely on luck whether biological parents accept their gay children. Only when these good ol’ Christians started robbing gay couples of the right to foster children did the gay community start playing hardball back at them. Don’t mind me laughing here, I think it’s just a good bit of karma biting them in the arse (ass).