Catholic Bigotry?

[thesultanofsheight]

As they've been putting children under the direct charge of pervert priests for centuries, I'm surprised that they get the hump about gay fostering.

[DjDan]

As they've been putting children under the direct charge of pervert priests for centuries, I'm surprised that they get the hump about gay fostering.

 

well here's another suprise for you: Catholic church didn't put children "under direct charge of pervert priests" intentionally.

[DjDan]

^ give the lady a prize!!

[keyboarder]

well here's another suprise for you: Catholic church didn't put children "under direct charge of pervert priests" intentionally.

 

You may be right. (though I'm not convinced). However, when the actions of these priests came to the attention of the Vatican, the church authorities intentionally tried to protect their identities and cover it all up.

[Chinahand]

As they've been putting children under the direct charge of pervert priests for centuries, I'm surprised that they get the hump about gay fostering.

 

well here's another suprise for you: Catholic church didn't put children "under direct charge of pervert priests" intentionally.

 

And that's your attitude all over isn't it ... putting a child into a gay home is putting it into a perverts' home.

 

Bigotry loud and proud.

[DjDan]

As they've been putting children under the direct charge of pervert priests for centuries, I'm surprised that they get the hump about gay fostering.

 

well here's another suprise for you: Catholic church didn't put children "under direct charge of pervert priests" intentionally.

 

And that's your attitude all over isn't it ... putting a child into a gay home is putting it into a perverts' home.

 

Bigotry loud and proud.

 

just to confirm: you're not talking to me here are ya?

[Cronky]

The emotive and personal nature of these posts serves to show but one thing. Namely that a 'one size fits all' moral policy is utterly wrong. The Government should keeps its nose out of the adoption business - it's just too personal and sensitive for ham fisted and dogmatic politicians to handle. There is only so much Government can do to help people. If it tries too hard you end up with divisive policies that fracture society and cause argument. Witness the strong discussion on this forum

 

The Christian culture is against gay adoption. Fine. That does not, in itself, prevent gays from adopting children in the right circumstances. Hypothetically, we would prefer our offspring to be looked after by a trusted 'maiden aunt' than by an unknown nuclear family. As it happens our children, in the tragic event of our early deaths, go across to a family we know about. However, we will now stipulate that, if this is not possible, that a Christian agency arranges adoption with a family. This is in accordance with our culture. The New Labour people want a multi cultural society yet they seem to want to stamp on our own Christian culture. The net result of the policy will probably be the demise of Christian adoption agencies and more children will remain in state care. I don't see that gays are in anyway disadvantaged by the status quo. They can adopt, but not across the board.

 

New Labour is least of all laissez-faire and they are cause of dissension and strife much more than they are the palliative. The couple in the Daily Telegraph were actually told to change their views. Who controls peoples thoughts? Individuals or the State? The controlled nanny state has got way out of hand.

 

For what it is worth I worked, without issue, amongst the gay community for a few years. Professionally I never had problem. Privately I didn't like the scene but I kept my views to myself. When it comes to my family it's a different matter and I won't accept the Government imposing its own moral code on me.

 

I'm not deeply religious by the way. More 'hatched and despatched'. We opted for a registry office marriage as we didn't feel our religious convictions were strong enough to justify the church ceremony. However, if you threaten someone's core culture that is different matter.

[josie kelly]

I just cannot bear the thought that, if our children were to be orphaned, they might be adopted by a homosexual couple. I try not to imagine that one day, a little twelve year old boy, still missing his Mummy and Daddy, might find himself in a house where two men sleep together and practice homosexuality. To my family the thought is utterly dreadful.

 

I have a perfect right to exercise my point of view in accordance with my religion and no one is going to take that away from me. Furthermore I have a right to stipulate what I want for my children. However, in the UK that right has now been taken away from families like ours. The return of catholic persecution is upon us and it's a terrfying scenario.

 

Excuse me if I'm misunderstanding you, but in one breath you state that you are exercising your strong point of view regarging homosexuality according to your religion and in the next you say that you're not even religious enough to get married in a church.

 

That smacks to me of a genuine homophobia rather than something that's actually driven by religious belief. I'm not condemning you for that - I can't presume to tell somebody how to think, but it does come across as using religion as a convenient backup to support something that's actually a deeply personal belief.

[Cronky]

josie kelly, I think it is fair to say that when we were younger, my wife and I were less interested in religion and it's formalities. Now we are older and have children we take our values more seriously and think about the issues. We have gay friends and I worked amongst the gay community for some years. What other people do is none of my business. Homophobia is wrong and pointless because what people do in their private lives is just that - private. I had no problem working with gays but didn't want to get close to the culture.

 

However, the Government is instructing the Christian Church to change its thinking and with it the working practices of its adoption agencies.

 

Tell me, do you think Government should have the power to overide religion and criminalise peoples beliefs? Where no actual harm is being caused should the Government dictate attitudes? If my children were bereaved we would want a say in how they were adopted. Should the Government deny me this?

 

I agree with you, you can't presume to tell someone how to think. If you think my attitude towards adoption is offensive then that is your opinion and I would respect it but what has it got to do with the Government?

 

That's my beef, freedom of opinion and expression. That includes the freedom to receive and give offence.

[Lonan3]

I can’t help noticing that words such as ‘bigotry’ and ‘homophobic’ are beginning to appear in the debate. They are words which have been considerably devalued by excessive overuse, so they don’t particularly bother me. I now tend to regard them as the resort of the politically-correct, well-meaning but generally ineffectual do-gooder who finds their beliefs being undermined by debate.

I am sure they are the kind of people who, in their well-meaning way, believe that we should all encourage and support the gay ‘community’ (another word that has lost its meaning from overuse). It is no longer sufficient to tolerate homosexual relationships, it is apparently now expected that we should all promote and endorse such lifestyle choices as if they were at least equal, and possibly preferable, to our own.

There is a point at which liberalism swings the pendulum a little too far – and I think that we’re very close to that point now.

The problem is that ordinary people are left behind by it. They do not want to know about other peoples’ sexual preferences. There is no reason, normally, why they should. I do not, on meeting someone for the first time, announce my name and then add: “…And I’m ‘straight’/heterosexual, by the way.” I have experienced on a number of occasions, however, people introducing themselves and adding: “…And I’m ‘gay.’”

They sound proud of it… as if it is some kind of achievement. It isn’t.

What it means is that they have chosen a lifestyle that precludes the possibility of procreation. And having done that, I believe they ought to accept the consequences of it – rather than circumventing it by loudly proclaiming that they have their ‘rights’ (which never seem to be twinned with ‘responsibilities’ in today’s society) and that they include the ‘right’ to adopt and raise children.

They know that if they proclaim it loudly enough, and for long enough, the feeble politicians will leap onto their bandwagon – totally ignoring what the quieter majority of people would prefer, as usual – and usually end up giving them a greater degree of influence than this small minority could ever hope to achieve if they weren’t so vociferous.

I don’t care about the views of religious ‘bigots.’ They are no better and no worse than the gay ‘bigots’ they’re arguing with.

My opinion remains that the IDEAL upbringing for a child is in a loving family in which the parental figures consist of 1 male and 1 female.

If that can not be achieved, then there are single parents who do a superb job of raising their children.

As far as I am concerned, however, homosexual couples should not, in the normal course of events, be offered the opportunity to adopt – only if there is no other reasonable alternative should such a thing be considered.

 

And if you think that makes me homophobic – fine! Because it makes you too stupid for me to care about your opinion!

[manxcrabber]

lonan3 you are spot on... to much inflamatory language is being used & tends to be out of context.

 

debates like this have no conclusion. the combination of government policy (politics), religion, and poorly informed opinion is a bad idea. this is my final posting on this rather exhausting thread.

[Miss Take]

lonan3 you are spot on... to much inflamatory language is being used & tends to be out of context.

 

debates like this have no conclusion. the combination of government policy (politics), religion, and poorly informed opinion is a bad idea. this is my final posting on this rather exhausting thread.

 

 

I'm sure your substantial contribution will be missed

[DjDan]

My opinion remains that the IDEAL upbringing for a child is in a loving family in which the parental figures consist of 1 male and 1 female.

If that can not be achieved, then there are single parents who do a superb job of raising their children.

As far as I am concerned, however, homosexual couples should not, in the normal course of events, be offered the opportunity to adopt – only if there is no other reasonable alternative should such a thing be considered.

 

I fully agree.

 

To take it further, I would say that to allow a homosexual couple to adopt a child is to take an unnecessary risk with that child's wellbeing, and I do not believe in taking risks with the lives of children. The data presented earlier shows two sides to the story (one to show that no problems occur in homosexual upbringing, the other to show that there are)... in which case, until it is adequately 'proven' (since that obviously isn't the case right now) we shouldn't be putting children's future in that situation.

 

Can anyone here think of a time in their life from which they can now say to themselves "I'm glad i had a Dad" or "I'm glad I had a Mum". I personally can think of both. I'm personally grateful that I have both a Mother and a Father. How can I support a situation in which we deny a child of being able to say the same thing about his/her life?

[ans]

I can’t help noticing that words such as ‘bigotry’ and ‘homophobic’ are beginning to appear in the debate. They are words which have been considerably devalued by excessive overuse

 

I can only speak for myself, but I don't generally get accused of either of those things excessively. Have you considered that there might be a very good reason people are 'overusing' them when communicating with you?

 

Thankfully, your own ignorance is fast fading with your generation and those that will follow are generally demonstrating a much greater level of tolerance and understanding of things they don't practice themselves. Apart from the religious nuts I suppose, but their numbers are fading fast too, to the point where they're just an irrelevance to a modern society and a historical legacy of an age in humanity where we were less enlightened.

 

After all, in a society where more and more people are rejecting religious beliefs, why should anyone really be concerned at their rejection of ours?

[Lonan3]

I can’t help noticing that words such as ‘bigotry’ and ‘homophobic’ are beginning to appear in the debate. They are words which have been considerably devalued by excessive overuse

 

I can only speak for myself, but I don't generally get accused of either of those things excessively. Have you considered that there might be a very good reason people are 'overusing' them when communicating with you?

 

Thankfully, your own ignorance is fast fading with your generation and those that will follow are generally demonstrating a much greater level of tolerance and understanding of things they don't practice themselves. Apart from the religious nuts I suppose, but their numbers are fading fast too, to the point where they're just an irrelevance to a modern society and a historical legacy of an age in humanity where we were less enlightened.

 

After all, in a society where more and more people are rejecting religious beliefs, why should anyone really be concerned at their rejection of ours?

I shall do my best to respect your ability to applaud a decaying society.

As an (admittedly amateur) historian, however, I am very well aware that current set of mores that you appear to admire so unreservedly have been celebrated in previous times, have always been found to be destructive, and have eventually been rejected. I have no doubt that the same will eventually happen again.