Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
more accurately: friends who were raised Catholic
Lapsed Catholics are the best . I know that sounds terrible, it's just that a couple of my closest friends come from Catholic families. In fact, they're my son's 'god-parents'. In that, if I ever want someone to tell my son about God, it should be Oliver. They can cover whisky-mixing and cigarette-rolling at the same time.
-
'Fraid so. And employing specious 'separate but different' arguments is creepily reminiscent of the justification for apartheid.
The one I find creepy is the 'but they genuinely believe it' justification. I don't see how anyone could be bigoted and NOT genuinely believe it.
-
That’s what you said: “Everybody must obey the law, regardless of their religion.”
No, that's not the same. The same level of obligation , which is not absolute. I think the obligation and the consequences should be the same whether you break the law for religious reasons or not. I don't think, for instance, that protesters who trespass or do physical damage should be treated differently on the basis of whether or not I agree with their cause.
-
I was thinking more "It gives the baby to the queens, or it will get the hose again."
And that sound, ladies and gentlemen, was a mental picture making my brain explode. Or as we call it here, a Craig Special.
-
(The oldest religions have the prettiest churches and art, though. I'll give them that.)
If we get to pick on the basis of art, it's Greek or Russian Orthodox for me. There is the most beautiful little Orthodox church in Chch, on a busy street in an industrial area, surrounded by garages and the like.
-
But forcing people into participating in gay adoption..
Wha...?
You know, gay adoption. You come in, and are assessed as to whether you are fabulous enough to be allowed to adopt a gay baby*.
*This is ridiculous, of course, we all know gay people are made. In China. In the same factory where they make all those fake fossils.
-
but that (at that point) the all-male commenters did get it
I'm going to 'little fake offence whimper' now, because my comment is about half a page earlier than yours.
-
But forcing people into participating in gay adoption or solemnising a gay marriage is okay?
Again (is anybody counting?) nobody is forcing anybody to be a marriage celebrant(with I/S's caveat about automatically becoming one, which is silly) or to run an adoption agency. If you freely choose to do that, you are also freely choosing to comply with the law in that area.
Tricky at the point where the law changes while you're doing the job, yes.
-
I mean, prior to 1984, no one should have engaged in homosexual acts?
Heh, fair call. Because everybody, regardless of religious affiliation, has the same level of obligation to obey the law?
-
Only those willing to abort may become doctors. Clergy must marry anyone, adoption agencies must adopt to same sex couples. What this means is people with a certain beliefs are unable to participate. Which really is what you want.
Everybody must obey the law, regardless of their religion. There is no basic right to treat decent people like scum. If you want to be fire-fighter you should be prepared to fight fires.
You can say whatever you like. You can practice your religion to the point where it impinges on the rights of others. But you have no special religious privilege to interfere with those rights.
Because your idea of equal is different to mine, but you want everyone to play by your rules, yet somehow everyone playing by my rules is wrong and terrible.
Discrimination (against groups, which you well understood when you introduced the Veitch herring) is wrong and terrible, whether it's religious or civil. Once again, own opinions, not own reality. You can think 'you get four and you get two' is 'equal' but that simply doesn't make it so.