Catholic Bigotry?

[Chinahand]

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!

 

Wow, that is one amazing post. I am genuinely not being sarcastic in the least in saying that.

 

I really have to say I have no idea how to respond to it.

 

It certainly takes the wind out of trying to debate this issue.

 

Maybe it is right that this debbate should just wind down to an end as all topics invariably do.

 

I certainly do not want to be accused of being "stupid" for still trying to attempt to say your views are your views, but we are debating the laws of the UK and every person has a right to say whether they agree or disagree with them and attempt to explain why.

 

I do not think I'm being a "politically-correct, well-meaning but generally ineffectual do-gooder" in saying we should attempt to alter our legislation to take account of the practical realities of our society.

 

I definitely do think that we should all "promote and endorse such lifestyle choices as if they were at least equal, and possibly preferable, to our own". But I do think these lifestyle choices are a reality in our society and having laws that specifically exclude them from making a contribution to our society would seem misguided.

 

I am happy to debate whether I might be incorrect in saying that a positive contribution will be made by gay adoption, but fully admit the argument is so politicized that finding dispassionate good science is difficult. I believe I have posted links to allow this to be examined, I admit they are flawed, but I think they are better than links other people have put up. I especially find it very odd that if people acknowledge it is possible that gay adoption could contribute to helping our society then they should continue to advocate it being banned, rather than been vetted and monitored.

 

And finally I feel that one of the things we should always strive to do is to overcome the "natural" barriers that exist preventing us improving our society. Whether that is fire, test-tube births, or banning racist hate speech and attempting to reduce our "natural" inclination to define certain people as being in-group and certain people being out-group no matter what the advantages working with these people are.

 

Countries do make mistakes in legislation: I beleive the US has recently overturned Educational Quotas and reserved places for minorities in Education. I don't proclude this legislation COULD be found to be incorrect and needs altering in the future. But if this is the case the only way to deal with it is by debating the issues and not accusing those who disagree as being bigoted and stupid.

 

I have called one person on this topic bigoted. I believe he holds his attitudes due to an illogical faith in a punishing god. I think my definition of a bigot is someone who refuses to debate an issue or even attempt to understand that their understanding will by definition be partial.

 

I almost certainly do not think that definition applies to Lonan3, Cronky, or others who fundamentally disagree with my position, nor do I think it applies to myself. I would be glad for them to continue to make contributions to this thread so I can learn the reasons WHY they hold their position. But I think they should also respect my efforts to continue to present my point of view.

 

Anyway, as I say above, reading the power of Lonan3's post has absolutely stopped me in my tracks. I feel I've been sat on by a silver back ;-). God I wish I could right as powerfully and succinctly as that.

[ans]

God I wish I could right as powerfully and succinctly as that.

 

I hope that was deliberate

[Karellen]

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’

 

Reminds me of

 

REG:

Why are you always on about women, Stan?

STAN:

I want to be one.

REG:

What?

STAN:

I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG:

What?!

LORETTA:

It's my right as a man.

JUDITH:

Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA:

I want to have babies.

REG:

You want to have babies?!

LORETTA:

It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG:

But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA:

Don't you oppress me.

REG:

I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

JUDITH:

Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS:

Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG:

What's the point?

FRANCIS:

What?

REG:

What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS:

It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG:

Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

 

[simon]

they have chosen a lifestyle that precludes the possibility of procreation.

 

No they haven't.

[Albert Tatlock]

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today...

 

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

 

John Lennon

[Lonan3]

they have chosen a lifestyle that precludes the possibility of procreation.

 

No they haven't.

 

Another thread - another debate. Several months ago.

[Chinahand]

Was it the millionaire who said "Imagine" no possessions,

A Little Boy who said I don't need no lessons

 

Elvis Costello!

 

Albert, I'm not disagreeiing with you, but I've always felt Elvis really summed up the irony that exists under the surface of Imagine. As is often the case with great art it is very hard to reconcile the piece of art with the creator of that art and John Lennon's relation with Imagine is chock full of arty farty Phd thesises!

[Albert Tatlock]

Was it the millionaire who said "Imagine" no possessions,

A Little Boy who said I don't need no lessons

 

Elvis Costello!

 

Albert, I'm not disagreeiing with you, but I've always felt Elvis really summed up the irony that exists under the surface of Imagine. As is often the case with great art it is very hard to reconcile the piece of art with the creator of that art and John Lennon's relation with Imagine is chock full of arty farty Phd thesises!

If it was written by a child - they would have thought him naive.

If it was written by a millionaire - they would have thought him hypocritical.

It it was written by a woman - they would have thought her a 'women's libber'.

If it was written by a poor man - they would have thought him envious of money and a failure.

 

etc.

 

The point is though, it was written, and such critiscism is irrelevant to the words it contains.

[Chinahand]

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.

 

Lonan3 are you really telling me that the decline of the Roman and Greek civilizations can be put down to homosexuality. Or if I'm picking the wrong cultures can you describe which other societies you've examined as an amateur historian which have declined and eventually rejected these so called mores.

 

... mores that .. have always been found to be destructuve, and have eventually been rejected.

 

FFS ALWAYS!

 

I've just spent a year reading a hugely complicated and detailed study of the life and works of Nietzsche - don't ask - I am what I am! His attacks on decadence and his certainty in the decline of western society has a massive resonance. He was writing about high Victorian Europe - I shudder to think how he'd write about the modern day with reality TV, the tabloid press, pornography, and the permissive society.

 

But for all Neizsche's condemnation of decadence, what I just cannot understand is how a middle class professional who works hard, saves, has a house, can be described as having destructive mores just because he's had a 15 year long loving relationship with another man.

 

What are these destructive mores that you are so certain exist in this relationship?

 

Yes if a gay couple are openly sexually promiscuous, take drugs, write off the values of education and commitment, then I fully agree they should not be permitted to adopt (but I think trying to say every gay, or even more than a minority of them, will behave like the worst cliche of a 1970s San Francisco Queer is just nuts, its like saying every American woman will behave like an LA Porn Star - something very previlent in the hatred Puritanical countries have of the USA)

 

The idea that you believe that homosexuality per say without any context to how these people actually live there lives is such an issue that it is responsible for the decline and fall of whole societies is just astounding. Do you really believe such things? That isn't a rhetorical question, I am frankly amazed.

[When Skies Are Grey]

Can I put this forward as an early candidate for Thread of the Year....fascinating stuff and for once, some interesting banter. Keep it up.

[Lonan3]

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.

 

Lonan3 are you really telling me that the decline of the Roman and Greek civilizations can be put down to homosexuality. Or if I'm picking the wrong cultures can you describe which other societies you've examined as an amateur historian which have declined and eventually rejected these so called mores.

 

... mores that .. have always been found to be destructuve, and have eventually been rejected.

 

FFS ALWAYS!

 

I've just spent a year reading a hugely complicated and detailed study of the life and works of Nietzsche - don't ask - I am what I am! His attacks on decadence and his certainty in the decline of western society has a massive resonance. He was writing about high Victorian Europe - I shudder to think how he'd write about the modern day with reality TV, the tabloid press, pornography, and the permissive society.

 

But for all Neizsche's condemnation of decadence, what I just cannot understand is how a middle class professional who works hard, saves, has a house, can be described as having destructive mores just because he's had a 15 year long loving relationship with another man.

 

What are these destructive mores that you are so certain exist in this relationship?

 

Yes if a gay couple are openly sexually promiscuous, take drugs, write off the values of education and commitment, then I fully agree they should not be permitted to adopt (but I think trying to say every gay, or even more than a minority of them, will behave like the worst cliche of a 1970s San Francisco Queer is just nuts, its like saying every American woman will behave like an LA Porn Star - something very previlent in the hatred Puritanical countries have of the USA)

 

The idea that you believe that homosexuality per say without any context to how these people actually live there lives is such an issue that it is responsible for the decline and fall of whole societies is just astounding. Do you really believe such things? That isn't a rhetorical question, I am frankly amazed.

 

The piece you are quoting - and inadvertently, I hope - taking out of context, was written in response to a post from ans.

I would be happy to debate further but I'm afraid its time to prepare for a nighttime of work. When I can respond, I shall.

[John Wright]

I just think we are side tracking from the issues.

 

Of course gay men and women have just as strong parenting desires as any one else. Of course it is easy to get around the biological obstacles. Many do

 

What is at stake here is that, the state having passed a law which allows everyone who is not a convicted child molestor to adopt, to ensure there are more potential adopters, in the face of a shortage of suitable adopters, especially of older and disabled and handicapped and emotionally traumatised children, should a church be allowed to defy the law of the land.

 

Lets turn the question on its head. lets say it was about black singles or couple being allowed to adopt white difficult to place children. Who would try and justify an opt out for the dutch reformed church of south africa (which justified apartheid on religious biblical grounds). It isn't any different.

 

If sexuality is genetic, like colour or race, there cannot be any effect on the child of the sexuality of the adopters.

 

If sexuality is learned, then why do children born into or adopted into conventional families with a mumy and a daddy grow up gay.

 

This isn't about political correctness it is about a small body, the catholic church, circa 1 million, saying to the government of 60 million, we don't like 1.5 million gays and lesbians and what they do or stand for and we won't obey the law.

 

I have to say that te e-mails I have received direct about how some women were treated by catholic Social Services, Nugent Care, in having their babies spirited away as recently as the 1970's doesn't paint the organisation in great light, and as it only pLaces about 200 babies a year, out of 3,800, adoptions will it be missed if it leaves the game?

 

What about the rights of those hard to place children to a loving family life. It isn't respecting that at all.

 

MMM, thinks to self, and what is position of Latter day Saints to those of less than white skinned hue? Officially and in fact? This last sentence is a troll for DjDan

[Juan Kerr]

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

 

That's pretty veiled ... what "risk" to their "wellbeing" is demonstrated?

 

You seem to be a member of the right wing christian lunatic fringe who cannot distinguish the word "gay" from the world "paedophile" as that is the insinuation you make in your post (DJDan says that they are all at risk of being bummed).

[slinkydevil]

Reminds me of

 

REG:

Why are you always on about women, Stan?

STAN:

I want to be one.

REG:

What?

STAN:

I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG:

What?!

LORETTA:

It's my right as a man.

JUDITH:

Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA:

I want to have babies.

REG:

You want to have babies?!

LORETTA:

It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG:

But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA:

Don't you oppress me.

REG:

I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

JUDITH:

Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS:

Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG:

What's the point?

FRANCIS:

What?

REG:

What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS:

It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG:

Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

 

 

Ah better than any religion. Where do I sign uo?

[DjDan]

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

 

That's pretty veiled ... what "risk" to their "wellbeing" is demonstrated?

 

You seem to be a member of the right wing christian lunatic fringe who cannot distinguish the word "gay" from the world "paedophile" as that is the insinuation you make in your post (DJDan says that they are all at risk of being bummed).

 

I love to read your valuable comments to my postings. To refute them, is always so easy, especially when you talk such rubbish.

 

Tell me o wise one, when did I ever insinuate that a gay man is a paedophile? I certainly do not believe that, and I certainly have never said that.

 

The risk factor: To actively deny a child of a Mother... or a Father is a risk to the wellbeing of a child. (risk = chance = we do not know what the outcome may be = there may be a negative outcome). There is evidence which shows us that a "Father" is crucial in the development of a child.... and likewise a "Mother" is crucial in the development of a child. To take either one of those away (by giving the child to a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual couple) is to deny a child of the crucial influence of either the mother or the father. That therefore, is a risk! We do not yet know how that may negatively affect the child.

 

I ask you: Why take the risk?