Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh, please. The Holy Spirit told me the exact opposite. Now what? Claims like this are useless as teats on a bull. The H. S. Is efficacious in terms of personal conviction, not generalized textual criticism.
They followed people around from childhood to well into adulthood. They've did questions, interviews, surveys, check ups, checked mental health, social health, morals and ethics, grades in school - overall they have been thoroughly examined. Of course there are a handful of papers that show bad things happen, but one meta-analysis of a chunk of data showed a positive outcome for the children of homosexual parents in over 90% of the studies examined.
I already did, awhile ago. I even brought it up a few times after I initially posted it.
And you're over reacting. There is not destruction going on.
The number of people who believe in something is irrelevant, and a lawsuit filed means nothing until it has been evaluated.
It is the same, as due the a "sincerely held religious belief," an entire group was discriminated against and not allowed equal right and protections under the law, and told they weren't even allowed in some businesses as a matter of policy.
So? Discriminatory policies should make people uncomfortable.
That is not happening.
Sure, some, but criticizing is not the same as attempts to silence. I don't say "shut up," I say "you are wrong."
Shouldn't the children have the right to go to a home that wants to take them in, free of what someone who has no stake in the issue thinks?
Again, they are not.
You can do that, it is your right. However, just because you have the right to something doesn't pardon things that result in bigotry.
I am very aware of that. However, the very general trend is that Republicans are fueled by the Religious Right.
It wasn't intended for us to stick with the constitution for more than a few decades. The Founding Fathers didn't want the dead to govern the living. Jefferson would be ashamed that we haven't already disregarded and updated it.
If it is their own private establishment. For people like Kim Davis, who are public servants, those in her position do not have such a right to deny based on personal beliefs.
I live in a place where it's a frequent thing. It gets so bad here that several years ago a judge told a divorcing Wiccan couple they could not expose their child to "non-mainstream" religions, even though both parents were in mutual agreement over their Wiccan beliefs and teaching them to their child.
I said it, because I live in it. Unfortunately, I a part of my existence is having to deal with religious people who persecute pretty much anyone who isn't like them. It's far from everyone being like that, but yet there are still a ton of people here who want to deny me my rights just because I hold positions, views, and identities that are counter to their personal beliefs. They don't want to just tell me I'm a sinner, they want to get involved legally and prevent us from having equal rights and privileges and even stripping us of rights and privileges where they can. Over nothing more than religion.
It depends. With something like marriage, there is no real traditional practice of it, as it is very sensitive to not only culture, but also time. We may mock and ridicule first cousin pairing in the Western world today, but the facts are it was normal and accepted in the not-too-distant past.
The good thing about science is it doesn't matter who I agree with. When there are studies that are replicated or show trends that surface within groups, we are given lots of data, and we can examine what the data shows. That is what science is showing us, through a process that relies on not the findings of one or even a few but of many, and the findings of the many are strongly congruent in that homosexuality is not a problem or an issue, for themselves, neighborhoods, or any children they may have.
I never said such a thing. Conservative Christians to have a general trend of pooling from a limited pool of sources, and it does tend to be Freudian in nature. Those the things alone are major red flags.
You can, but it does lead to it.
Insurance policies, taxes, marriage hospital visitation, jobs, housing - these things that are granted without question or regard have been denied to homosexuals, many of them even be granted them only to be later stripped once they are "discovered," and there is very typically and very frequently Conservative Christian ideology behind it.
That homosexuals should be killed because they are an abomination and their blood is on them?
Because you don't get to dictate what the masses are exposed to.
No, because if we make a special exception for one, you have to make special exceptions for all.
Because you have a problem with a tolerant society that accepts people rather than shunning them.
It's not an assumption when someone says homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt, and they can pretty much only give Christian sources as an explanation as to why. They don't want homosexuals to get married, but they can only draw from their own religious biases to establish a reason. It's not an assumption when someone is telling you.
Because you stated an opposition to public schools teaching things contrary to your own religious dogma.
It has been proven. Like it or not, homosexuality has been observed in a ton of animals, it's proven that sexuality and sexual orientations aren't really binary and the can be more fluid rather than concrete, and we know that nobody chooses their sexual orientation. It just happens.
It's wrong because it ignores the needs of the child, a child who could have otherwise been placed in a loving and caring home, but because of bickering adults the children get caught in the middle of the crossfire and people rarely bring them up when they are the ones who have the most at stake in the issue.
Yeah, they are. Nearly every argument used against homosexuality (and the tactics used to alienate homosexuals) is exactly the same as the ones used against blacks. Including "doctrine."
It's not up to the church to decide who's "unworthy" to adopt, based solely on belief. That's why state guidelines are in place.
"Untraditional" marriage has been around a loooooot longer than "traditional"marriage. Hate to tell ya.
Because it's not about you. It's about society.
Because they are.
Yes. It is. Read the DSM IV and V.
But not everyone is discriminated against based upon who they are.
what you consider is immaterial. The government considers it such.
The moment you label someone's very identity as a human being as "not normal" and "immoral," you cease to treat them with respect.
I do wonder why children are so often ignored and occasionally do end up caught in the cross-fire of feuding adults. Divorce is another issue, one where parents are prone to using their children as tools, as a means to and end, and never giving a damn about their own child.
So god is an exclusivist who only picks those whom he deems worthy to share in eternal secrets and esoteric messages? I thought he "so loved the world?" That it wasn't an issue of him choosing, but of us accepting?
I'm not sure about that. I think that all that matters is the best interest of the child. I don't see how the parents have any such right to specify the religion of the adoptive family.
I don't discredit Christianity. I only discredit the sort of short-sighted and egocentric, entitled self-indulgence that masquerades as "true Christianity" -- the sort that causes people to perpetuate the systemic violence in the name of "righteousness" that Jesus decried.
You have no idea who I am, or what I have or have not experienced. It's obvious to anyone with a brain stem that one who is a member of the clergy would have had significant and deep spiritual formation and is intimately acquainted with the Spirit and how it works, both in the lives of people and the church. Often, the Spirit unsettles us, rather than makes us comfortable. One thing the Spirit never does is put a truth upon us that serves to dehumanize any minority person, as you have consistently demonstrated here. Your ad hominem here is not a conviction on your part, but a cheap attempt at provocation. It won't work. I have a high degree of confidence in my own spiritual formation, and cannot be shaken by such obvious and vulgar tactics. Sorry -- no sale here, Skeezix.
It would seem as though you can't refute my arguments and have no other riposte but to intimate that I'm not a "real Christian." The only claim I've made is that the Holy Spirit does not trump critical textual study.
You'd be the first such person who has never doubted.
It would seem obvious that your own inner struggle has resulted in "analysis" of one whom you don't know that is tenuous at best, and embarrassing for you at most.
I'm not bringing doubt upon it -- only pointing out your hubris.
I know hyperbole when I see it.
They don't. Giving up one's parental rights cuts all conditional strings.
If they are really concerned for the well being of the child, they should want it to go to a loving, caring, and stable home. They should simply get over themselves, and look out for what is best for the child. And as hard as it may be to swallow, that does not inherently include Catholicism, or any other religion.
Nor does it inherently exclude any minority group which the former parents may personally find distasteful.