ilfait
Member
Not really.Always interesting to see America's fear of "Sharia law" while in the same breath slowly push Christian law which ultimately will be the same thing.
Not really.Always interesting to see America's fear of "Sharia law" while in the same breath slowly push Christian law which ultimately will be the same thing.
It's already legal for them to do so. I'm against legislating a ban until we have enough research to justify such a thing...Are you in favor of letting homosexuals adopt children or not in favor?
Always interesting to see America's fear of "Sharia law" while in the same breath slowly push Christian law which ultimately will be the same thing.
If the organization is taking federal money they shouldn't have the right to turn anyone away.
There certainly is an overlap, but most people don't want any religious law period...People advocating for the advancement of Christian values will be the same ones opposing the advancement of Islamic values by the same token.
Okay. I wasn't sure because your question sounds like it could have gone either way so I got confused.It's already legal for them to do so. I'm against legislating a ban until we have enough research to justify such a thing...
Exactly. People advocating for the advancement of Christian values will be the same ones opposing the advancement of Islamic values by the same token.
I also find it disconcerting that there are several references to how this is akin to selling products between buy and seller.
Children are not products, they are individuals with rights, and chief amongst these rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; rights not to be impeded by religious test as no child is born to a religion.
There certainly is an overlap, but most people don't want any religious law period...
Most people don't staunchly identify as conservative or liberal... there are issues they agree with and issues they don't...Is that really true though? I imagine a large portion of your country does otherwise it wouldn't be such a big component of Conservatives in America currently no?
Why would government even get involved with adoption in this manner? Amh
Because theocracies are only bad when the muslims do it.
“Devout” as a term is nothing more than egotistical, self-aggrandizing nonsense.
My grandfather was a staunch catholic, a Knight of Columbus yet his duty and compassion as a medical officer ensured that when his catholic sister-in-law sought an abortion, he went with her in the event there were complicating medical issues. This was in a time when abortion was illegal.
Is he suddenly less a Catholic? By whose decree?
If religious institutions must withdraw their participation because they won’t put the rights of the child first, then so be it. By their actions we see the inhumanity of their faith, an example of their constant and irrepairable weakness.
The true humanitarians will find a way to continue extending their compassion.
I find your post completely without compassion and the fact you seem to be devoted to your belief ironic.
I have no compassion for religious dogma and it’s adherents. Religion is an artefact of humanity, a seeking intelligence in need for answers that are uncomfortable and unknown.
The amendment literally shields entities from prosecution that discriminate based on religious beliefs.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/07/12/aderholt.laborhhs.amendment[1].pdf
e: unless I'm reading that wrong.
I'm not for banning same-sex adoption, but I would like a system that puts heterosexual couples first on priority before same-sex ones.
It's only in recent human history have we toyed with the concept of same-sex partners and I would like to see more science done on this to fully understand the long term effects of what it could have on society.
Outright banning is a knee jerk move though.
It's almost like people are individuals and don't all share a brain with those in their group...There's not even logic in this. If Republicans banned gay people as well as single parents, ok, maybe they're really sticking to a moral code where they only believe in a complete traditional family (although, completely misguided, it would at least be consistent). They're just running on hate and discrimination as usual.
LMFAO. Now we like science, but when science tells us things like we are destroying the earth, we do not like science. Or when a black person kneels for the flag we LOVE America, but when our President stands next to Putin and says "America should be ashamed of themselves, Russia is strong and powerful and I believe Putin" we do not love America.
It's amazing. Fucking mess.
It's almost like people are individuals and don't all share a brain with those in their group...
Call me a biological realist, because I feel like progressivism needs to be equally balanced with what nature laid out for us.
Heterosexual couples has been the norm for thousands of years and it's a model that clearly works for us. Same-sex adoption has only been a relatively new phenomenon so I'm going to express some skepticism to what effects it may have on a society.
Doesn't mean I hate LGBT. But if nature intended for humans to have a mother and a father unit for thousands of years, then perhaps we should continue working with that system before exploring other options.
It has nothing to do with the parades (their life style didn't cross my mind when I typed this).
I'm concerned with working with models we evolved with. A mother and a father goes back thousands of years and has kept society going. Same-sex hasn't so I express some cautions with changing the system.
But you can argue that a powerful segment of society wants it.There certainly is an overlap, but most people don't want any religious law period...