lavendersparkle (
lavendersparkle) wrote2009-01-30 11:01 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
(no subject)
Another thing that gets me down at pro-life events is that they are dominated by conservative Catholics. I've nothing against conservative Catholics, but spending a whole evening as a minority of one is tiring. Sometimes I get the urge to just leave them to it and let pro-life soc become a subgroup of Fisher House where people can preach to the choir about the evils of contraception and gay adoption. Over dinner there was an animated discussion about This case of some grandparents who were refused custody because they were 'too old' and whose grandchildren were instead adopted by a gay couple. Now, I think that, if the details of the story are correct, it shows the great problem of social services not taking into account that keeping children within their extended family or with friends of their family, is usually better than adoption by strangers. This story would be just as much a travesty if the kids had been adopted by the Brady Bunch. However, my comrades in the cause of life concentrated on the gay aspect and the 'PC gone mad' aspect of allowing two men to adopt.
I know queer pro-lifers. I know people who were raised by queer parents. I want them in our pro-life soc tent. We're not going to change any minds if pro-life soc is the place you go to let off steam agreeing with the homophobic story you read in the Daily Mail. Why don't they just start a homophobic soc and let me get on with winning people around to pro-life feminism.
I know queer pro-lifers. I know people who were raised by queer parents. I want them in our pro-life soc tent. We're not going to change any minds if pro-life soc is the place you go to let off steam agreeing with the homophobic story you read in the Daily Mail. Why don't they just start a homophobic soc and let me get on with winning people around to pro-life feminism.
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-01-30 11:46 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-01-31 12:09 am (UTC)(link)no subject
Also, whilst I'm not Jewish (I can't speak for Jewish people and wouldn't try), I've read numerous articles by Orthodox and other Jewish people that go into details about how to convert eg.
http://www.beingjewish.com/conversion/becomingjewish.html
http://judaism.about.com/od/conversion/f/conversion_how.htm
I know that disputes rage between different groups re. the validity of certain conversions, but I find the claim that one cannot convert or that, as you put it, one has to have "Jewish blood" to be odd. Can you back up your views with any further reading? What the "rules" which you refer to?
no subject
no subject
Anyway, to answer your question. Yes, I do have Jewish blood. I am Jewish and I have blood, therefore I have Jewish blood. Of course, it's all a bit tricky, because I regularly donate blood and most of that blood probably goes to non-Jews. Despite being Jewish blood it does not make them Jewish. This is because Judaism is not transmitted through blood, that's vampirism. Jews and vampires are different, although we do both share a dislike of crucifixes. An easy way to remember the difference is that vampires like drinking blood, whereas Jews avoid drinking blood to the extent of trying to drain as much as possible out of the animals we eat. Many medieval Catholics got confused on about that point.
no subject
no subject
no subject
You made me LOL.
no subject
Hmm. Plural of anecdote is not data, but I have worries about the thinking behind this comment. Most of my interactions with social services has shown them to be rather desperate to send children back to their extended family rather than keep them with foster carers or have them adopted. Their extended family often have many of the problems of their parents, and so they can be sent back to a life of violence and deprivation which can end with them returning to foster care in a few years anyway.
I know absolutely nothing about the case you mention, and I know that some of the best parents can have children wrestling with the problems of drug addiction or mental health problems, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the grandparent's perceived unfitness to be primary carers has very little to do with their age.
As shown elsewhere in the thread, an obsession with blood links can be unhelpful.
no subject
I don't think that blood links are all important. In fact, the reason I think that it can be better to keep the children with their grandparents is because it provides more continuity. The same argument could be made for the children living with a family friend they've grown up knowing. Genetic links have nothing to do with it.
no subject