Catholic Bigotry?

[Miss Take]

Unfortunately, I cannot find another word to describe someone who believes that heterosexuality is normal that isn't considered pejorative or discriminatory to anyone who does not!

 

I believe heterosexuality is normal.

I also believe homosexuality is normal.

 

But then I don't know what words people use to describe me

[Lonan3]

The Catholic church's objection to such adoptions is based on the principles of that organization, and in an abstract sense (i.e. ignoring for the moment the specific principle) no organization that is prepared to favour its own principles over the potential well-being of those in its care should be allowed to offer adoption services.

 

1. Would you then accept that many of the 'gay' activists proclaiming their support for this measure - especially the more militant and vocal ones - are equally guilty of favouring their own principles over the potential well-being of those potentially being being put in their care?

2. If the mainly voluntary services provided - both by RC and CofE organisations - feel unable to continue the work they've been doing in placing children for adoption, will that actually benefit the children awaiting adoption. (And please don't tell that local authorities will be able to cope!)

 

Why should a gay couple not be allowed to adopt? So far the reasons given for this argument seem to be:

 

1. Because they have consciously chosen to adopt a lifestyle that prohibits raising a family.

 

Ignoring whether or not homosexuality is a conscious choice, this suggestion has little merit. If the couple in question have proved themselves capable of providing a caring and stable family life then we are denying a child a home in order to remind homosexuals of the consequences of their supposed choice - i.e. we are in this case placing more value on reminding gay couples of "the normal order of things" than on the welfare of the child in question.

1. Many of the heterosexual couples who apply to adopt children are those who already have children of their own and, out of benevolence (or whatever term you wish to give to it), have decided to adopt rather than produce more children of their own.

2. Many of the heterosexual couples who apply to adopt children are those who have tried and failed to produce children of their own.

Neither of those points could be applied to a same-sex couple.

 

2. We will be promoting homosexuality by allowing gay people to adopt.

 

Let us again assume that homosexuality is a choice, and that the sexuality of children can be influenced by the example parents set. Two thoughts occur:

 

a. What does it matter? Are we to suppose some kind of demographic apocalypse will result from gay couples adopting children and increasing their numbers by transmitting their lifestyle to future generations? Unlikely, given the numbers, to say the least.

 

b. If we accept these assumptions, how are we then to explain the existence of homosexuality throughout the ages, with gay men and women being born to straight parents (obviously) and featuring in historical accounts all the way back to the classical civilizations and beyond, long before the corruptive influence of gay men dancing on television (or whatever is being blamed for turning kids gay these days)? Weak father figures? A shortage of women? The devil? Homosexuality was prevalent enough in the classical era to prompt a roaring trade in gay prostitutes (who feature long before the supposed decadence that apparently brought down the late Roman empire). If they made the choice, if a choice they made, to be gay despite the example of their parents and the large majority of society (as is the case today) then surely children cared for by gay parents are capable of making the choice to be heterosexual.

 

To argue otherwise would be tantamount to stating that homosexuality is simply more alluring and exciting than heterosexuality, something that perhaps those of the view that homosexuality is a choice and are opposed to gay adoption on the basis of the effect it will have on the child's sexuality would do well to consider.

 

1. Children can be influenced by the example parents set in almost every respect. As a parent, I am very well aware of that. I am assuming that you are also a parent since you are so certain on this point.

 

2. pointing to antiquity is unlikely to prove anything. There have always been geniuses. There have always been murderers. There have always been artists. There have always been thieves.

 

3. Personally, I don't believe I've actually argued that I'm opposed to gay adotion on the 'basis of the effect it will have on the child's sexuality.' I have argued, quite simply, that a male + female parental model is likely to be more beneficial for the child's emotional development. That is not quite the same thing as you're suggesting.

 

3. Children adopted by gay people will get bullied.

 

So do children in foster care and adoption centres - I can remember on more than one occassion kids at my school abusing those in foster homes (from snidely asking if their mum was going to turn up for parents day to shouting "you've got no dad!"). The fact of the matter is though that bullies aren't just kids being kids, they're pricks who should be punished whoever they pick on and for whatever reason - and seeing as they're pretty much as likely to pick on a foster kid (or one from a "normal" family) as one who has been adopted by gay parents, this really isn't a reason against gay adoption.

 

I hadn't actually heard the 'bullying' argument being used in this context before, and I think it's actually a blind alley.

Many children get bullied at school - regardless of their backgrounds. I was a foster kid, who was occasionally mocked because my surname was different to that of my 'parents.' It was the least of my worries.

 

 

4. Child development is optimal when that child is cared for by a man and a woman.

 

If this is the case, then surely it would be just as bad, if not worse, leaving the child in care where they are cared for on an irregular schedule by a variety of foster parents and professional staff in an adoption home. What's more damaging to a child's emotional development:

 

a. Being loved and cared for by a gay couple and being part of a family; or

 

b. Growing up thinking that you're such an awful kid that no one could ever want you?

 

In my mind the practical benefits of gay adoption far outweigh any of the more intangible, and I believe questionable, concerns raised here so far.

 

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the large number of couples who are waiting for the chance to adopt. Although, in the interests of the child, the system of examination has to be thorough, it has become weighed down with bureaucracy to such an extent that many couples have been driven to despair by it. ome have, reluctantly, given up on the possibility of giving a child a new start in life.

This legislation is driven by the failure of the system - not by a shortage of potential parents and, in my opinion, it has been hijacked by 'gay' activists who have seized the opportunity to extend their rights, knowing that weak and feckless government would accede to their demands.

 

Also, just as an aside: to my mind no great empire or civilization has collapsed because of libertarianism or so-called decadence. Such an argument is a throwback to 18th and 19th century moralists and their sources (many of whom used current events as a means of criticising their own governments at the time), and is one that often loses all its strength on closer examination - the greek civilization, for instance, waned more due to military rigidity and political infighting between the great city states and the consequences of ambitious generals rendering them helpless in the face of the rapidly growing Roman Empire. The Romans on the other hand found their empire crumbling under the stresses of the sheer extent of their empire and the instability and dilution of central power, combined with the rise of powerful federations and groups along its vast borders.

 

Greece was never, in reality, a single entity.

The Roman Empire reached a stage where it had to continue it's expansion in order to supply the growing needs of it's decadent/libertarian rulers. The expansion, obviously beyond the ability of its means to defend its borders, encouraged powerful groups and federations along its borders to attack it.

But, as you said, that is an aside.

[VinnieK]

1. Would you then accept that many of the 'gay' activists proclaiming their support for this measure - especially the more militant and vocal ones - are equally guilty of favouring their own principles over the potential well-being of those potentially being being put in their care?

 

I'm happy to accept that for some activists the principle will indeed be more important than the cause it rests behind. However, that does not then equate a gay couple's desire to adopt with or reduce it to a desire to simply make a point. The Catholic church's stance as an organization does make it inappropriate to render these services because they are governed by and a part of that organization. A gay couple who wish to adopt, on the other hand, are not necessarly members of a militant organization and are not inherently bound to be motivated by the same reasons as that organization.

 

2. If the mainly voluntary services provided - both by RC and CofE organisations - feel unable to continue the work they've been doing in placing children for adoption, will that actually benefit the children awaiting adoption. (And please don't tell that local authorities will be able to cope!)

 

This is a slightly different argument. The local authorities may or may not be able to cope, I don't know, but they are obliged to be able to cope. If this means that the bill be delayed by a few years until the infrastructure be put in place to take care of those children the catholic and CofE decide to abandon, then so be it.

 

1. Many of the heterosexual couples who apply to adopt children are those who already have children of their own and, out of benevolence (or whatever term you wish to give to it), have decided to adopt rather than produce more children of their own.

2. Many of the heterosexual couples who apply to adopt children are those who have tried and failed to produce children of their own.

Neither of those points could be applied to a same-sex couple.

Does that then disqualify a same-sex couple from adopting? Hardly. There are surely enough children in care for same sex couples to adopt without meaning that an infertile couple's desire to adopt a child is thwarted. Nor do these two qualities make heterosexual couples somehow more deserving or even suitable than a same sex couple. One could argue that the same sex couple's desire to adopt is equally as benevolent as that of the couples mentioned in 1. - after all they have decided to make the time, emotional investment, and meet with the financial obligations of raising a child even though they could enjoy a higher standard of material living if they remained childless.

 

1. Children can be influenced by the example parents set in almost every respect. As a parent, I am very well aware of that. I am assuming that you are also a parent since you are so certain on this point.

 

2. pointing to antiquity is unlikely to prove anything. There have always been geniuses. There have always been murderers. There have always been artists. There have always been thieves.

 

3. Personally, I don't believe I've actually argued that I'm opposed to gay adotion on the 'basis of the effect it will have on the child's sexuality.' I have argued, quite simply, that a male + female parental model is likely to be more beneficial for the child's emotional development. That is not quite the same thing as you're suggesting.

 

The point was not to prove that homosexuality has been around forever, but to demonstrate that homosexuality occurs in primarily heterosexual environments, even those occuring before an awareness of homosexuality on the public stage was widespread and accepted, and that this fact suggests that a heterosexual child raised in a homosexual environment need not be conditioned by the influences of his or her adoptive parents into "choosing" homosexuality over heterosexuality.

 

If not related to sexuality, what problem then is there in the influence that homosexuals may bring to bare on a child in their care?

 

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the large number of couples who are waiting for the chance to adopt. Although, in the interests of the child, the system of examination has to be thorough, it has become weighed down with bureaucracy to such an extent that many couples have been driven to despair by it. ome have, reluctantly, given up on the possibility of giving a child a new start in life.

This legislation is driven by the failure of the system - not by a shortage of potential parents and, in my opinion, it has been hijacked by 'gay' activists who have seized the opportunity to extend their rights, knowing that weak and feckless government would accede to their demands.

If this is the case then this legislation will surely fail because gay couples will be subject to exactly the same kind of scrutiny and some will be driven to the same kind of resigned despair by the process. If gay couples were being "fast-tracked" to adoption, or if it were made so that a gay couple were preferred candidates to adopt, whilst other couples remained mired in bureaucracy there would then be a problem, but I seriously doubt that this is the case.

 

In my view this does not necessarly pose a problem to my argument, however. I believe that a gay couple are capable of providing as caring and supportive a family environment as a childless heterosexual couple - in other words their inclusion into the pool of prospective adoptive parents is only a good thing to my mind, increasing as it does the chances of a child going to a good home.

 

Greece was never, in reality, a single entity.

 

No, but hellenic civilization was widely regarded as a distinct entity, as much then as it is now. I explicitely recognize that greece was not a single entity in my reference to the infighting between the city states.

 

The Roman Empire reached a stage where it had to continue it's expansion in order to supply the growing needs of it's decadent/libertarian rulers. The expansion, obviously beyond the ability of its means to defend its borders, encouraged powerful groups and federations along its borders to attack it.

 

This is simply not true, even in the slightest. The Empire reached its greatest extent under Trajan, who could hardly be described as decadent (under Hadrian it then willingly contracted in an effort to shorten its borders, but the difference in opinion between the two rulers was more strategic than one of moral principle). Where the Romans expanded in the east they frequently did so in order to deny resources to the emerging Persian (and previously Pathan) empire and bolster small buffer states and client kingdoms who could provide the empire with a clear line of defence.

 

The greatest problem with the Roman empire, and here we are discussing the Western empire as opposed to the Eastern Roman Empire (which managed to survive in one form or another for another thousand years) was not "decadent rulers" and their needs (whatever they might be), but by the insecurity and instability of the administration which owed more to the disproportionate power weilded by individual generals and the praetorian guard whose ambitions regularly weakened the ability of the empire to protect and govern itself, as well as the improvement in quality of hostile powers and their military. At the beginning of Roman expansion virtually none of Rome's closest enemies had any grasp of even basic military tactics, never mind the complexities of siege warfare, by the end however the military field had been evened (often at the hands of men who had in fact served in and been trained by the legions themselves). The notion of the decadent effeminate ruler fiddling as his civilization burns may provide a romantic image but it is at best a fairytale and at worst archaic propaganda.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

On the first issue, although I totally reject any accusations of homophobia [the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals], I am perfectly willing to accept charges of heterosexism [a belief or argument that male-female sexuality is the only natural, normal, or moral mode of sexual behaviour]. I do not have any difficulties with having friends who are ‘gay’ (sorry, I know that sounds like a cliché, but it happens to be true), only with those who seem determined to promote their lifestyle as being equal, or even preferable, to any other.

 

Well I do apologise Lonan3 but I would have to call you homophobic! Homophobia is not just about fear, it is prejudice and discrimination towards homosexuality and homosexuals. Certainly your perspectives on sexuality are extremely prejudiced towards homosexuals. I think you need to think harder on what 'natural', 'normal' and the 'moral code' are. You state these are givens but this is simply not the case. These are just terms used to by the majority (the 'normal' people) to define and reject the abnormal for the purposes of retaining power in society. What does 'natural' actually mean when you use it? I can easily assume what you mean by those terms, you think these terms actually are fundamentals and justify your persective but they only do that by making you take a homophobic viewpoint. This is what makes you homophobic but then this is the mindset of so many 'normal' people.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot find another word to describe someone who believes that heterosexuality is normal that isn't considered pejorative or discriminatory to anyone who does not!

Because there is no such word. To think in terms of 'normal' is to think in terms of your dominant place in society's power relationships, which in itself easily leads to oppressive attitudes, as it does in your case, viz. with homophobia.

 

"People become homosexuals because of their environments. Particularly critical is the environment during puberty. Suggestions, ideas & strange dreams are symptoms of confused attempts to understand new and blunt sexual desires and are rashly interpreted as defining someone as being one sexuality or another. If these conclusions are accompanied by actual homosexual acts they are even more strongly reinforced," carries an element of truth.

 

Does it? How do you know? Is sexuality really formed at puberty or during puberty only? Why do you assume this to have an element of truth? Is it because you would like it to be true?

It definitely serves your attitude to homosexuality quite well as it is undoubtedly a homophobic

statement. The writer has explained homosexuality in terms of heterosexuality being somehow THE sexuality, this statement denies homosexuality as being a true sexuality, this is noted with reference to 'confused' and 'rashly'. Though who is the writer to look on homosexualityas being 'rash' and 'confused'. Complete rubbish. Much the same can be said about heterosexuality and the propraganda that is fed to children and how sexuality is forced on them at an early age(e.g. Disney films, adverts, etc.) to re-inforce that heterosexuality is the way they should be. I could call it rash letting children watch the Prince and Princess kissing in Sleeping Beauty.

 

I think you have a cheek telling someone that because they think homophobia is not chosen they have a blinkered view. Your comments and way of viewing homosexuality are fundamentally homophobic, and whilst you are the one with the belief that heterosexuality is the correct or natural sexuality you are the one with the blinkered view. I apologise if this has already been touched upon but I find it fascinating how it is still being questioned whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Why would anyone choose to be gay in a society that still discriminates against homosexuals and when people harbour the beliefs that you do.

 

1. Would you then accept that many of the 'gay' activists proclaiming their support for this measure - especially the more militant and vocal ones - are equally guilty of favouring their own principles over the potential well-being of those potentially being being put in their care?

I have not, however, read any contributions so far that have persuaded me that a child would be happier and better cared for, or even as happy and well cared for, after being adopted by a same-sex partnership than by a male-female partnership, or by a single, natural parent.

 

Though this is the point. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR YOU TO BE PERSUADED.

This debate is not about whether some sort of justification is required for same-sex couples to be able to adopt, it is about the justification of the Roman Catholic church preventing these people adopting. Your concern about the possible harm to children of having same-sex parents is directly a result of your homophobia. Why the concern?

 

However, I've already stated my opinion. Unlike some of the contributors to the debate, who appear to believe that anyone who does not hold with the same articles of faith that they do must be wrong/bigoted/homophobic, I accept that it is just an opinion, no more than that.

This issue is quite specific. The Roman Catholic relgious beliefs in this instances that apparently prevent them from sanctioning the adoptions are homophobic. Their request for exemption is homophobic because it is based on these beliefs and discriminates against homosexuals.

Others who agree with the Catholics stance on this are thus taking a homophobic stance.

 

Some people seem to missing point and keep bringing this issue back to the question of whether gay people should adopt. Some here talk about the importance of letting the Catholics have their exemption because it is their RIGHT to have these beliefs and act on them. Yet at the same time obviously fail to see that this simultaneously prevents homosexuals from having the rights as the rest of society. By supporting the Catholics in this you value a small group of peoples wish to be able to discriminate against a section of the population over the latters right to not be discriminated against. To say the least about this it isn't very liberal at all.

 

Though nevertheless, this keeps being brought back to the same old argument of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt at all. This is not what the debate is about. Furthermore, this relgious fundamentalism mirrors what is a big problem in America where the zealots spread lies as they have in this issue to pretend that their beliefs and opinions are being suppressed. This legislation does not impact on their having and voicing their opinions and beliefs (which are oppresive), it prevents them from carrying it them out and oppressive others. TO RE-ITERATE THIS IS NOT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF BELIEFS, nothing is threatening these.

 

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the large number of couples who are waiting for the chance to adopt. Although, in the interests of the child, the system of examination has to be thorough, it has become weighed down with bureaucracy to such an extent that many couples have been driven to despair by it. ome have, reluctantly, given up on the possibility of giving a child a new start in life.

This legislation is driven by the failure of the system - not by a shortage of potential parents and, in my opinion, it has been hijacked by 'gay' activists who have seized the opportunity to extend their rights, knowing that weak and feckless government would accede to their demands.

 

This is quite offensive and incorrect. This is NOT an issue that has been hijacked by gay activists.

There is legislation in the UK to protect Blacks, women, the ages and the disabled against discrimination. What happened was that when it came to equalising the legislation for homosexuals the Catholics asked for an exemption. Obviously, the gay activists fought their case, as it is in their interests to protect themselves from discrimination and extend their rights to that of everyone else.

What is 'hi-jacking' about this. To think this is some selfish ploy to cause trouble for the sake of it is to be grossly ignorant of the facts.

[Cronky]

The Oxford English Dictionary of Homphobe is:

 

'A hatred or fear of homosexuals.'

 

Having views on the adoption issue does not mean that you either hate or fear homosexuals.

[Cronky]

Thought provoking piece in today's Daily Telegraph

 

If it is a nonsense for the New Labour Government to impose morality then it is an even greater nonsense for the EU to do the same.

[John Wright]

Thought provoking piece in today's Daily Telegraph

 

If it is a nonsense for the New Labour Government to impose morality then it is an even greater nonsense for the EU to do the same.

 

 

But h neither are atempting to impose morality here.

 

The law now says anyone can adopt, traight, gay, lesbian, heterosexual, singles, married couples, registered partnerships.

 

The church run adoption societies are not voluntary in the ordinary sense. Other activities may be funded by charitable fund raising, but the adoption services are being fully funded by grants out of taxpayers money.

 

In that case the tax payer hasa right to say you must comply by our rules to get the money and take part.

 

That is nothing to do with morals.

 

Equallly the church adoption societies have the right to say no and pull out. That mens they willl have exercised their moral, doctrinal or belief right.

 

In doing so tye will have hurt the babies who they are supposed to do their best for, that surely is a breach of other moral doctrinal and belief rights.

 

The dilemma is clearly with the church, not the state

[ans]

The Oxford English Dictionary of Homphobe is:

 

'A hatred or fear of homosexuals.'

 

Having views on the adoption issue does not mean that you either hate or fear homosexuals.

 

And two other definitions from other sources are:

 

prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

 

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

 

Quoting a small segment of one source doesn't really augment your argument particularly well.

[VinnieK]

Thought provoking piece in today's Daily Telegraph

 

If it is a nonsense for the New Labour Government to impose morality then it is an even greater nonsense for the EU to do the same.

 

Governments impose morality all the time, that (at least in part), is one of the reasons for government itself. What you mean is that is you believe it's a nonsense for the (new labour, as you've helpfully pointed out) government to stand for a morality that you disagree with - in this case the extension of the same rights and opportunities to all members of the populace.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Cronky, if your going to argue your case please substantiate the argument with better sources. I could even explain the right-agenda without reference to what it is actually stated. The above source you have mentioned is the second, right-wing pile of rubbish you have given that is plastered in the papers to misguide the public.

 

The sort of reasoning in these arguments rests on a fallacious belief that somehow the majority's rights are under threat and that the minorities are being granted greater rights. This is not the case.

 

Their idea of rights was much more all-embracing, and much more moralistic. It was not enough, for example, that ethnic minorities or homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. It must be asserted, and enforced in law, that these groups were good.

 

It followed that the opponents of such laws were bad. Thus mainstream Churches, whose opposition to homosexual acts is simply a subset of what they have pretty much always taught about the purpose of all sexual acts, are called "bigoted". Thus people who do not agree with New Labour's idea of rights are thought to have psychological problems. They are homo- or Islamo- or whatever-phobic.

 

The first statement is just tosh. Nothing about the move to remove discrimination is about marking homosexuals and ethnic minorites as good. Rather it the case that discrimination is BAD and discrimination has been, and still is, especially marked against these peoples. Therefore, the policies that some groups in society wish to undertake that are discriminatory are rightly seen to be bad.

 

I am for people having their beliefs, though I will argue against their premise if they are based on ignorance. Yet it would be wrong for anyone to prevent those people from having their beliefs, however, impractical that is.

And, yes, those who discriminate and are prejudiced can quite rightly be called bigoted. In regard to the apparent theological beliefs towards homosexuality they can quite rightly be called ignorant as they are all 'sex based'. It is clear whenever the Church discriminates that the basis of their arguments are sex-obsessed. It is all about sodomy. Homosexuality is certainly more than that. To look at it another way I myself do not believe that all there is to straights and their identification of themselves as heterosexuals is about sex and nothing else. This would be extremely narrow-minded, and is a sex obsessed assumption. This is the problem with the Church's arguments.

 

This can be seen more easily when the Church in fact would be quite at ease letting a single gay parent adopt but a same-sex couple is a different thing.

 

Nobody is saying that people have psychological problems, where has this been said? It is that they are just ignorant of what sexuality is and this renders the Church and other bigots to argue the proposterous and the oppressive.

[P.K.]

At the end of the day, your nothing but a homophobic bigot. Many of your points would be interesting to debate about but you appear to use threads about homosexuality as somewhere to vent your homophobia. This is specifically about Catholic agencies and same-sex parents. Nobody cares about how repulsed you feel about two men kissing or the immature commentd about 'Adam and Steve'.

This whole post amused me but the above in particular. It is so typical that if you admit to not liking something about homosexuality you are immediately labelled "homophobic" and the accusers always immediately assume not only the moral high ground but also that they have won the argument.

 

What complete and utter tosh. They also seem somewhat light on rational. It's just pathetic.

 

Unfortunately for them I am NOT homophobic. I do NOT have an irrational aversion to homosexuals. My dislike is very rational and I can justify it, not that I have to on here. The rabid pro-homosexual liberalists wouldn't want to know anyway. It wouldn't fit in with their view of the world and therefore would have to be labelled "homophobic" without any justification whatsoever.

 

The views on decadent civilisations were interesting although not terribly relevant. A point to ponder, democracy was originally allowed to florish because a bunch of slave-owning, homosexual Spartans fought the Persions under Mardonius at Platae in 479 BC and won.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It is only from your statements P.K. that it seems your are not being rational in your point-of view on this matter. You may dislike something but if that view is based on prejudice then yes it would be homophobic. Though the same accusation of prejudice would be completely true for someone to have an irrational dislike of someone based on their race.

Much of what is stated by those who clearly argue their case in favour of the Catholics is justified from an irrational, ignorant perspective.

It isn't so much about morals at all but refuting statements that are based on ignorance.

 

In reference to pro-liberal homosexualists it does depend on which groups you talk about, as some are quite limited in their aims to just homosexual equality, whereas the group Peter Tatchell is against this and likes up heterosexual sexual rights as well. Certainly Outrage is not limited to just the homosexual.

 

Besides I thought it was the Athenians who began democracy, though in their culture there was much pederasty there were not homosexuals in the same sense as the word is used today.

The Spartans were ruled by a King and had an entirely different form of government. I do not think anything in reference to ancient civilisations has any relevance to this thread.

[Albert Tatlock]

I would have to agree with PK's views somewhat - for instance how would you fancy being in a 60 man Army/RAF/Navy barracks, shared open plan ablutions and all that, with some guy staring at your bits?

 

It's all very well taking the high and mighty 'I'm not homophobic' view - but there are certain circumstances where people can have it foisted on them. Sitting in an office is often a different world to some people's reality.

[Lonan3]

It is only from your statements P.K. that it seems your are not being rational in your point-of view on this matter. You may dislike something but if that view is based on prejudice then yes it would be homophobic. Though the same accusation of prejudice would be completely true for someone to have an irrational dislike of someone based on their race.

Much of what is stated by those who clearly argue their case in favour of the Catholics is justified from an irrational, ignorant perspective.

It isn't so much about morals at all but refuting statements that are based on ignorance.

As one of the people who have argued/debated about the rights and wrongs of this legislation - wasting our time because its been foisted on us whether we want it or not - the thing I've resented most deeply throughout this thread has been the attempt to bully those who disagree with it by accusing them of 'homophobia,' 'ignorance,' intolerance,' and so on.

I cannot (and wouldn't wish to) speak for P.K. or anyone else but, from my own perspective, I take exception to such imputations.

Name-calling of this kind is the desperate resort of the intellectually deprived.

There have been many views expressed that are deserving of respect - on both sides of the argument. But when such a serious discussion degenerates into personal castigating of those who hold different views to one's own, then the whole thing becomes pointless.

[VinnieK]

the thing I've resented most deeply throughout this thread has been the attempt to bully those who disagree with it by accusing them of 'homophobia,' 'ignorance,' intolerance,' and so on.

 

Does demanding another poster provide proof for their "sickeningly inaccurate drivel" without actually offering proof of its inaccuracy (never mind its capacity to "sicken") fulfill the criteria for bullying?

 

Quite frankly, the demeanour employed by those arguing against gay adoption have hardly been pure as the driven snow either; provocative talk of a "decaying society" and the downfall of civilizations, for instance, in the context of the discussion's subject, is as much a sham tactic as claiming that everyone opposed to gay couples adopting is homophobic. Similarly, not everyone arguing for the bill is a wrong-headed liberal guilty of using the fate of children to promote and endorse homosexuality for the sake of their own sense of tolerance.

 

If there's a moral high ground to be had regarding how this debate has been conducted, it's ownership is more ambiguous than your indignation perhaps suggests.