Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And I don't think it was a Catholic thing per se
Oh, no, look at the Stolen Generation. That was a government doing what it genuinely believed was right - because Aborigines were unfit to be parents. That's why evidence is so important.
But taking babies from unwed (biological) mothers, and punishing those mothers for having sex out of wedlock, that's got religious overtones all over it.
-
Also, if God thinks two loving parents of the same sex is 'spiritually harmful', then God is kind of a... total asshole.
Pretty much the conclusion Christianity has forced me to.
-
I can't prove something as spiritually harmful, neither can you prove it is not.
The people who ran the Magdalen laundries believed they were doing what was best for those girls and their children, didn't they? That what they did to those women in terms of physical and emotional suffering was for the good of their souls?
-
You're thinking from a utilitarian perspective
Oh, and not solely, no. I think discrimination is immoral .
-
You're thinking from a utilitarian perspective, with utilitarian axioms. Which is fine, but it's not going to lead to any kind of understanding, assuming you're interested in that.
What? Seriously, what?
Because they truely believe it to be harmful for the child
This is a 'belief' which simply isn't true. To discriminate against people on the basis of beliefs which have no basis in fact (ie Black people are stupid, women are too dumb to vote) is bigotry. If that's not bigotry, then nothing is.
And no, actually, I've no interest in 'reaching an understanding' with people who doctrinally believe that gay people are unfit to be parents. And they've no interest in reaching an understanding with me. Or, it appears, reality, either.
-
Religious adoption agencies should not be forced to place children with same sex couples - why? Because they truely believe it to be harmful for the child and because there are other adoption agencies, eg. State ones.
Oh no. No no no. Nobody forces the church to run an adoption agency, they choose to. If they choose to do that, they choose to comply with the law. If a sect truly honestly genuinely believed it was best for children to be raised by wolves, would you allow that?
Please also note the APA research I linked to which indicated that there is no difference in outcomes for children of gay parents when compared to children of straight parents.
If the individual prospective adoptive parents aren't suitable to be parents for some non-shit reason, by all means don't give them a chlld. But saying that all straight people are better parents than all gay people... why am I not allowed to call that bigotry again?
-
Catholics dont get married at Presbyterian churches
Must... pick... nit...
Yeah, they do, if they want to marry people who aren't Catholics. When my Presbyterian cousin wanted to marry her Catholic fiance, his church refused to do the ceremony. Her church had no problems with it. Things got even messier after they had kids.
My mother had the same problem back in the fifties. The compromise reached there was that she and her Catholic husband were married by a Catholic priest, at a private home. Her Presbyterian family had refused to turn up anyway.
The same-sex issue is in a way actually easier because at least it affects both partners equally.
-
Incidentally, I part-officiated at a family member's marriage. The groom worked out what the celebrant had to do, very limited, and asked that I do all the other bits.
I believe Tess herself did something very similar at a friend's (non-religious) marriage. It's a neat idea.
-
I AB, take you CD
I'm pretty sure it's not legal to marry a CD, even if you are an All Black.
-
marriage celebrants are performing a public function
Indeed. I should perhaps clarify by saying I think registered marriage celebrants, regardless of their religion, should NOT be allowed to discriminate. They're a service provider. But if priests/ministers want to not be legal marriage celebrants, but simply perform a purely religious ceremony, they can knock themselves out being picky. They want to perform a legal service, they have to do it legally.
One of the few deeply shitty things about the CU legislation was that a marriage celebrant needs a separate licence to be a civil union celebrant - they're different things. They have pay twice, file paperwork twice. This is patently fricking ridiculous, but in there for a fairly obvious reason.