Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Strimen wrote:Simple, obey the laws of the land and not retoric spread by so called "believers" who have their own agendas. Stop trying to use "well my beliefes are...." as an excuse to persecute others. Instead hold people accountable to the laws of the nation and if you do not like those laws then vote to have them changed.

Just to be clear, your argument would be the same if the elected officials were "so called 'believers,'" correct? Because as long as you have laws made by man, you're going to get people injecting their personal preferences into the law.

Strimen wrote:I live in a democracy where this is possible, if you move here then you must obey the laws regardless of your ideals. Because religion is wide spread and multi-facted and a dime a dozen there are no laws based upon it in Canada and those that are are slowly removed and replaced with laws that are created by elected officals of the people of this country.

How are the laws on the books that are based in religion not laws "that [were] created by elected officials."

If democratically enacted laws is your baseline, how are religious laws bad?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to send your children to foster parents whom you can trust not to have any trace of homophobia?

And how would you find such people, or be so sure.

Perhaps a good start would be not to pick parents who say their religion makes them believe homosexuality to be a sin.

What difference does that make, we are talking about 'traces of homophobia' which is different from 'viewpoints on homosexuality'. To assume one is the other without good reference to confirm it in the individual smacks of bigotry, real rather than imagined. Which is odd seeing as you set the bar rather high by looking for traces of discrimination rather than full on discrimination.

Lets hit this one on the head, dislike does not mean intolerance and disapproval does not equate to discrimination. To go from one to the other requires a burden of proof, one that has now sadly been erased. To do this in the name of equality and fairness is a gross hypocrisy.

Orlanth wrote:

Strimen wrote:
Simple, obey the laws of the land and not retoric spread by so called "believers" who have their own agendas.

What agenda, the council had no problems with the family other than on this point of doctrine. By all other accounts they are model foster carers.
If therer is any agenda it is in a growing intolerance of religion veiled under human rights.

Strimen wrote:
Stop trying to use "well my beliefs are...." as an excuse to persecute others.

Noone is trying to do that except groups condemning the couple, like Stonewall who don't see any need to hide heir contempt. And I thought we were supposed to be against intolerance.

Strimen wrote:
Honour killings are still murders in this country. Persecution of an individual for their prefered sex, skin colour, gender, ideals is still illegal.

What has that got to tarnish a couple wanting to adopt? If you wish to sniff out bigotry by link religious people because of other religious people, of a different faith mind you, who practice honour killing; then congratulations! You have found a bigot, it might not be the bigot you were looking for.

Strimen wrote:
Thoughts

Yes, I thoroughly recommend them when taken to a fair and honest conclusion.

You missed what I was responding to. All of my quotes above were in response to a particular persons statement on how I would remove religious people. My answer was to not remove them. Simply make them obey the laws and not what ever they say is a part of their religion and therefore ok to do. My responses are not about the couple involved in the adoption dispute, but about religion in society as a whole which is what I was responding to in the section I quoted in my post. Please try to keep on track with the discussions that is why I quoted what I was responding to.

Good. We really need to crack down on these moronic religious fanatics.

biccat wrote:

Strimen wrote:Simple, obey the laws of the land and not retoric spread by so called "believers" who have their own agendas. Stop trying to use "well my beliefes are...." as an excuse to persecute others. Instead hold people accountable to the laws of the nation and if you do not like those laws then vote to have them changed.

Just to be clear, your argument would be the same if the elected officials were "so called 'believers,'" correct? Because as long as you have laws made by man, you're going to get people injecting their personal preferences into the law.

Correct.

biccat wrote:

Strimen wrote:I live in a democracy where this is possible, if you move here then you must obey the laws regardless of your ideals. Because religion is wide spread and multi-facted and a dime a dozen there are no laws based upon it in Canada and those that are are slowly removed and replaced with laws that are created by elected officals of the people of this country.

How are the laws on the books that are based in religion not laws "that [were] created by elected officials."

If democratically enacted laws is your baseline, how are religious laws bad?

At some point certain very old laws were not created by elected officals but lifted from a relgious text, a monarchy, dictator, peace treaty, indocturnated natives, etc. But we have begun to work those out of the systems over time. There are various forms of law in use today (ex. Nepolionic Law) that are very old and still in use, but have since been worked on by democratic society. That is how some laws are still "Not" created by elected officials.

And again I have no issue with religion in and of itself. I have an issue with people trying to use religion to work around things they don't like about a government's system in which we the people have an ability to change and affect. If I lived in the Vatican then I would be asking for a governmental reform/revolution, so that we could implement a fare and just system for all occupants of the nation regardless of religion/race/sex/etc to abid by and formed by a democratic government and not a dictatorship/monarchy/tyrant/whatever that takes power away from people.

Karon wrote:Good. We really need to crack down on these moronic religious fanatics.

TRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Locking for trolling and unnecessary flaming of religious people.

Howard Treesong won the thread, anyway.