PC madness G-d is banned

Muslimwoman said:
What happens to a child born into a faith that does not accept homosexuality but is placed with an adoption agency that does not have the same views? Surely this supports the principle of human rights for gay couples but goes against the principle of human rights for the child, to be brought up in the faith they were born to? What was decided in the end, can the Catholic adoption agencies refuse homosexual couples? Wow it's a bit of a minefield this one.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that adoption agencies funded by religious organizations should have their guidelines within the guidelines of the state...or else they'll be getting out of the business and we need them...

right to be raised in your religion when you are given up for adoption?? wow.

do we also have a right to be raised by members of our own race? or nationality?

tangled web we weave....when a child is given up for adoption to me that means no relative or friend or church member is willing to help out....the adoptive parents...those providing the love and support will now have control over these issues...after they are approved by the state of course.
 
Adoption agencies had warned they would close rather than place children with gay couples, saying that went against their beliefs.
Click to expand...
I suspected so...
wil said:
Seems to me that adoption agencies funded by religious organizations should have their guidelines within the guidelines of the state...or else they'll be getting out of the business and we need them...
Click to expand...
 
wil said:
Seems to me that adoption agencies funded by religious organizations should have their guidelines within the guidelines of the state...or else they'll be getting out of the business and we need them...
Click to expand...

Obviously politics and religion are mixed up in this issue. If I recall correctly, it was an empty threat by the Catholic agencies as the secular agencies could take up the slack (so to speak) if the Catholic ones did close.

s.
 
Tao_Equus said:
And I kind of disagree with you Snoopy. A word is only a word and it is its intent in use that matters.
Click to expand...


I kind of agree with your disagreement! Intent, location and time are all important in word usage. I thought I’d use what I thought was a universally offensive term (here in 2007) as an example of what I was going to say, but I find that in the US it apparently is not so. Learn something new every day! (despite my best efforts).

"The Connotation in the United Kingdom
· A sufferer of spasticity. This usage is generally believed to have been popularized from its use in the name of The Spastics Society, a charity for people with cerebral palsy. As a result of the next listed usage, this usage has become offensive to many.
· A politically incorrect term of abuse for an ungainly or physically inept person, as in "You're such a spastic" (also colloquially abbreviated to "spa", "spaz", "spag", "spack", "spacko" and "spacker"), derived from a popular misconception that those with any physical disability resulting in spasticity would necessarily also have a mental or developmental disability.
In the mid-1980s, some people attempted to "reclaim" the term. This is the meaning in the Ian Dury and the Blockheads song: Spasticus Autisticus, and it is also used in the Ben Elton book Gridlock. There is also a movie called "I'm Spasticus" (a wordplay on "I'm Spartacus")
The Spastics Society is now named SCOPE, leading to the colloquial use of the expression Scoper or Scopers or Scopey to be used in place of sense three. A widely held belief is that what is now Scope, was in effect forced to change its name because of the BBC Children's television show Blue Peter. The show in the early eighties featured a "spastic" named Joey Deacon. The term "You Joey" became a popular vulgarism with children at that time, along with "you spaz". Consequently, the terms spastic and all above associates evolved developed derogatory connotations.
editThe Connotation in America
In American slang, the term "spaz" is generally inoffensive, most Americans considering it casual slang for clumsiness, sometimes associated from overexcitement, excessive energy, or hyperactivity. It was especially common in Valley Girl or preppy pop culture trends of the 1980s which emulated the affectations of affulent urban youth of Southern California. Though at the time, the term "spaz" could be considered an insult in the same light as "nerd" or "geek", it has evolved with those words through the advent of the technology culture to represent a self-effacing expression of technical aptitude or affinity, e.g. "I am such a spaz when it comes to new electronics."

Spastic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.
 
Muslimwoman said:
I understand what you are saying snoopy and I agree with you but I think common sense has to come into it somewhere.
Click to expand...

"Common sense" to one person is clearly not "common sense" to another person! And how "common" is common sense? And if it is commonly occurring does it mean that it is good?

s.
 
The members of the KKK and the BNP have every right to believe whatever they believe. The problem comes when they commit illegal acts such as incitement to violence, or violence itself. I think it's unfortunate but a level of xenophobia is natural, and so legislating against thought crime and restricting freedom of speech is a dangerous path to go down. It's good that racism, homophobia etc are becoming/have become unacceptable, but I think we have to be careful of forcing the process too hard. We, as a society, are in danger of confusing 'I'm nervous because I've never met a Hindu before' type feelings with racism.

A quick aside...We don't have a word for prejudice against religious groups do we? Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenohpobia.... It's odd because there's alot of it about, but there isn't a word, at least, not a commonly used one. :confused:
 
Impqueen said:
The

A quick aside...We don't have a word for prejudice against religious groups do we? Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenohpobia.... It's odd because there's alot of it about, but there isn't a word, at least, not a commonly used one. :confused:
Click to expand...


Sectarianism?
 
You are right Impqueen, I have never heard of a word for 'religionism', yet it abounds and has done for centuries.
 
pattimax said:
"Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of Catholics in England and Wales, said: "It is clear from the prime minister's statement that he has listened to some of the concerns of the Catholic Church in regard to its adoption agencies. "

Sniff, sniff... you may have to squint, but I detect a pendulum shift.
Click to expand...

Well yes I think the agencies have got so many months grace to change (no pun intended). I still think it's more to do with political shenanigans than religion. Blair didn't want to upset the Catholic Church (it's rumoured he's thinking of jumping ship). And who knows what games the new prime minister will play?

s.
 
What I don't understand is what the "compromise" was. They asked for an exemption due to beliefs and were told to bugger off, so how can that be a compromise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top