Think you might be having trouble with your comprehension. IT is making the point, amongst others,that it was not exclusive to religious organisations - I can clearly see that IT didn’t say anywhere that it was ok what was done to kids.
Of course not so stop trolling. But you cannot on one hand attack all churches because some choose evil when the vast majority work very hard and do a lot of work with thousands of children around the world. You can focus solely on those who are evil and label all the same or can you can accept that sometimes, in any organisation or grouping of humans, that some bad people do bad things. No institution can escape that. It doesn’t make it okay but it also doesn’t discount the work others do that is fantastic.
No Church does anything without an Agenda. Usually it is to indoctrinate us into their belief system and adding to their wealth. For every “good” thing you reckon a Church does, I can give you two things that are pure evil.
The wealth of the Roman Catholic Church is astounding, so I am very cynical about this “good” that they do.
As I said, have your faith, follow your religion and the path of your god, and that is just none of my concern.
Think you have a problem following an agenda.
Those who make comparisons are trying to minimise the evil some do. Robert Mugabe is a bad man, but he didn’t kill as many of his citizens as Pol Pot. Stalin is worse than Hilter etc.
No doubt child’s were abuse by scout masters, by their parents and uncles, and in Government Institutions, but this does not lessen the evil of the Catholic Church, it’s clergy and all those who covered it up then and still do.
There in this quote you have shot yourself in the foot Cu_de_sac. You are saying that Gay marriage is wrong (ie “they should be held to account” - your words) because their decision to marry does affect the lives of others - any children they raise. You ask - how does it affect the children? Because 100% of children raised in a gay relationship do not have either a biological father or mother. You only need to talk to many adopted people who struggle throughout their life until they find out who their biological parents are even though they are raised by loving adoptive parents. I have a lifelong hobby of researching family history and now with the tools of DNA in research I have come across many adopted people using their DNA tests as a hope they will find their biological parents. They feel a huge hole in their lives until they find them. Just consider for a moment the large number of such people that are going to struggle with this in the future because they are raised by gay parents. This is a major reason I am against gay marriage - it does affect other’s lives - those who didn’t choose to enter a gay family relationship…the innocent children they raise.
The exact counterpart to that is something like ‘just because you’ve wilfully forsaken the all-powerful and benevolent creator of all and spit on his teachings, don’t expect me to do so, or even to refrain from trying to bring you back to the truth so you can save your soul’
I’m not religious, myself, but religious tolerance goes both ways. I’m no more of a fan of atheists who go out of their way to viciously mock Christianity (or any other religion) than I am of religious people who scream at gays that they’re vile sinners who’ll burn in hell. It’s UNCIVIL. Freedom of religion is ultimately intended to protect civil society and prevent armed conflict between people who believe different things, by allowing worshipped to worship in their own way without persecution. And it’s been pretty successful at that. Dunno why people want to mess with it.
As I said, I’m not religious. But if I was, if I REALLY believed in my heart and mind and guy that the all-powerful creator of the universe watched over us and loved us and had given us (via holy book of choice) the right way to live and the meaning of all thing, well, that’d trump any bullshit wishy washy law created by mere humans any day. And if push came to shove, I’d be lining up under Gods banner against the world with a gun in mu hand, fire in my heart, and a song in my lips.
Like I said, I’m not a believer, and I suspect that goes for many of us in here. But in our relatively low-religion times, it’s easy to forget that there are plenty of people who Believe with a capital B.
The (mostly relatively minor) legal concessions given to religions are, at heart, an acknowledgement of this. There are loads of people who prioritise the law of god over the law of man and will not be persuaded otherwise through jokes about invisible sky fairies. Tolerance of religion, and some minor bending of strict universality of law, is a measure designed to allow people to live in the nation without feeling obliged to actually combat it when it makes laws that they just can’t deal with. And usually there’s a bit of bending on both sides, like how Sikhs are allowed to carry their ceremonial dagger in situations that would get most people arrested if they carried a knife, but in exchange, the knife must be blunt.
There’s compromise on both sides.
Do you support banning adoptions? You could also do some research on the stability of children of same sex couples. Their stability might be further enhanced through marriage equality.
As is your right. But I disagree. Just because you believe in something. Have faith in something. Whatever it is. This should not give you special privileges by law. You should still have to abide by the laws the same as everyone else. Sikhs included.
There are many different silly things some people truly Believe in. With a capital B. Homeopathy for example. For which mocking by others is generally acceptable. But for some reason religious beliefs are supposed to given special mocking protections. Pfft.
I’m not suggesting the religious should be discriminated against, unlike the ‘no’ sayers are towards the LGBTI in regards to marriage. Quite the opposite. They should just be given the same rights as everyone else. Whether you believe in magic pumpkins, flying carpets, or nothing at all, same rules should apply to all.
Yet again you show your lack of knowledge on the subject.
And they do, they obey all the laws, and if they don’t they get punished for it. Religious people don’t get a free pass to ignore the law.
What you object to is laws that allow them to do something you disagree with.
If you are going to argue about something, at least get your argument factual.
Uh… what? Are you equating same sex attraction to a religious belief? They are not comparable items.
People don’t choose their sexual attraction, whereas a religious belief is a choice of faith.
Your arguments about children raised by same sex couples are homophobic nonsense. Children raised by same sex couples are not innocent victims of someone else’s lifechoices, they are the children of parents, same as any other. You even talk as if there hasn’t been same sex couples all over country raising children for decades.
It’s an exemption.
Belief based exemptions to laws, should just be a sad reality of the past.
I can tell by the continuing tension that everyone wants to know how I fared with Undercover Grandpa. Truth is, I didn’t watch it. Got halfway through Blackhat instead then fell asleep. There should be exemptions for Chris Hemsworth.
The exemptions I thought we were talking about were those proposed in the withdrawn ACL Patterson bill and the likely amendments from the religious conservatives. It is those people looking to instill discrimination in the legislation. It is those who believe they are doing it based on conscience shared by their religious counterparts. So, in their mind, freedom of religion is actually about preserving their privilege and embedding discrimination. What they believe to be their right/purpose and what I believe to be BS.
The whole ‘religion is a farce’ is not a debate for SSM
That is about the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Everyone to date has a biological Mum and Dad. Science is good, but it has not yet found a way to build kids without the bits a woman and a man provide.
And Huge Idiot, adopted kids, whether in the standard heterosexual family or the homosexual type family have exactly the same issues in the search for a biological parent.
And also, many of them don’t.
“Won’t somebody think of the children” is nothing more than another debunked smokescreen to hide ignorance and bigotry.
from both sides
The children may not be non biological. That is an assumption. It could be sperm from one partner and an egg from the other partners relative in an IVF treatment for all you know. Or vice versa.
I don’t recall the “yes” campaign using children as a tool, Icey.
And yet, if a group books a venue to host something, let’s say an anti-SSM group, the function hall is allowed to cancel the booking due to disagreeing with the speakers. Same with Uni’s, same with any function hall. It is allowed under law.
I assume you do not have a problem with that?