Catholic Bigotry?

[matty]

I disagree Lonan3 it isnot about papering over cracks, it is rather simply about preventing certain groups from oppressing others. In this case the Roman Catholic want to actively discriminate against homosexuals. They shouldn't be allowed to.

 

ThaThat YouGov Poll is quite shocking.

 

 

So are you saying it's fine for homosexuals to discriminate against the Catholic Church??

 

IMHO, religious fundamentalists are just as bad as homo fundamentalists!

 

I'm totally with Lonan3 saying:-

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.

[P.K.]

And just what, pray tell, is a "homo fundamentalist"?

[matty]

And just what, pray tell, is a "homo fundamentalist"?

 

Your favourite 'Peter Tatchall' ???

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I despise homosexuals a la Peter Tatchall. They know that if vociferous enough the representatives of the majority will roll over (sic) and his 2.5% minority will rule the day. I guess it makes the pathetic little man feel important but it is without doubt the tail most definitely wagging the dog.

Dear P.K.,

Frankly I think Peter Tatchell does great work. You seem to miss the point completely about gay rights campaigning and just about most campaigning. It is all about those people shouting and making a noise so that people will listen and take note that it wrong to discriminate based on homosexuality. It is about getting the people in power to listen. And maybe yes they do rule for a day. Though only a cretin would believe that somehow it is some sort of travesty against the majority. The majorities in this instance -heterosexuals, and similarly with racism - the whites, would never had handed over any rights to homosexuals and blacks if it were for the campaigning and fighting for it. It would simply not suit the majorities interests and modern day is racist and homophobic.

 

You don't have to go to church to be a good christian..... So for me it is highly likely that the Catholic Church "hierarchy" (for want of a better word) is representing literally millions of christians on this issue.

 

Why do you assume that good Christians are necessarily as homophobic as yourself?

 

Personally I think they need close role models from both genders to get a balanced view. To me that means any other upbringing is seriously skewed.

Though that assumption you make is based on an entirely skewed perspective, viz. a strongly gender-based, heterosexual one.

I think you would need to substantiate this point further to explain why it would be skewed and what is meant by a balanced view. I understand completely the difference between a man and a woman but the very fact that generally both a man and woman would bring up a child does not in itself mean that the upbringing of a child should be the sole preserve of a man and woman.

 

At the end of the day God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (with thanks to Bazza....).

 

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'.

[Pat Ayres]

You are quite right in saying that homosexual couples can not have the same kind of relationship as a 'nuclear' heterosexual household.

Just find the statistics of;

How many hetero partners are victims of domestic violence as opposed to homo partners,

Levels of child abuse in 'normal' homes,

Levels of murder by partner in 'normal' homes,

Numbers of broken homes in 'normal' relationships,

Levels of sexual violence, rape, in 'normal' homes.

The list is endless but when ypou can supply all those statistics you may be suprised at how stable and peaceful same sex relationships and households can be.

 

Another thing, if the 2.5% of the population is homosexual, there are possibly 2000 homosexuals in the IOM, how far away are we at any one time? You must know at least 5.

[Lonan3]

You are quite right in saying that homosexual couples can not have the same kind of relationship as a 'nuclear' heterosexual household.

Just find the statistics of;

How many hetero partners are victims of domestic violence as opposed to homo partners,

Levels of child abuse in 'normal' homes,

Levels of murder by partner in 'normal' homes,

Numbers of broken homes in 'normal' relationships,

Levels of sexual violence, rape, in 'normal' homes.

The list is endless but when ypou can supply all those statistics you may be suprised at how stable and peaceful same sex relationships and households can be.

 

Or that they are more discreet and/or intimidated about partner abuse?

 

Another thing, if the 2.5% of the population is homosexual, there are possibly 2000 homosexuals in the IOM, how far away are we at any one time? You must know at least 5.

 

Generally speaking, an irrelevant point to make. As I've said before, I'm not bothered about anyone's sexual preferences - only somewhat dismayed that so many feel obliged to announce it at every opportunity.

[Miss Take]

[

Or that they are more discreet and/or intimidated about partner abuse?

 

 

Unlike the thousands of women who shout out to the authorities every time their husband hits them.......oh.....wait......

[VinnieK]

In my view any gay couple should be allowed to adopt children if they pass muster under the same assessment procedure that a heterosexual couple undergo when applying to adopt.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[Cronky]

The people in the EU who drafted this law saw the sense of an opt out clause. This is described in the Times article as follows:

 

Brussels was, in fact, rather more cautious than usual. Having in mind the Roman Catholic populations of Poland, and perhaps of Malta, where almost everyone goes to church at least on every Sunday, it added a clause stating that the EU “respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations”. Brussels left the member states free to make specific provisions for religion. As a result, the Polish Government exempted Catholic adoption agencies from having to arrange adoptions for single-sex partnerships.

 

Gay adoption is not actually predjudiced by the Catholic Church having an opt out. Gays have the right to adopt through non religious agencies.

 

The real issue is that the Government has used this EU law to be very assertive on a matter of religious conscience.

 

Why?

[John Wright]

The people in the EU who drafted this law saw the sense of an opt out clause. This is described in the Times article as follows:

 

Brussels was, in fact, rather more cautious than usual. Having in mind the Roman Catholic populations of Poland, and perhaps of Malta, where almost everyone goes to church at least on every Sunday, it added a clause stating that the EU “respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations”. Brussels left the member states free to make specific provisions for religion. As a result, the Polish Government exempted Catholic adoption agencies from having to arrange adoptions for single-sex partnerships.

 

Gay adoption is not actually predjudiced by the Catholic Church having an opt out. Gays have the right to adopt through non religious agencies.

 

The real issue is that the Government has used this EU law to be very assertive on a matter of religious conscience.

 

Why?

 

This was not an EU law or directive, The EU law and directive was about emoployment and employment only and it allowed churcheds to employ single sex priests, no more no less. Stop confusing this English law with EU matters. Thye author of the article was and is a notorious right wing anti EU campaigner who will contort and moisrepresent anything for his purpose. Reda the article in fulkl he starts out by discussing the employment directive and then jumps to adoption without ever explaining hopw he thinks they are connected. The truth is that thye are not connected at all. English Employment Law has respected the Churches rights over the sex of priestrs

 

This is a totally different matter. Adoption at the end of the day is a state service, Religion is private. If religious organisations contract at state expense to provide a service to children seeking adopters by recruiting, vetting and allocating and approving, subject to final state approval then they must follow the law of the land and not discriminate against prospective adopters or children on grounds of race, sex,religion or handicap or sexulaity. Why do so many people not have a problem with the first 4 but choke on their toast on the last one.

[Pat Ayres]

I kind of feel Vinnie has said it all there.

One of the best posts I have ever read.

[ans]

I kind of feel Vinnie has said it all there.

One of the best posts I have ever read.

 

I hate Internet cheerleading but for once, I have to agree.

[Lonan3]

It is unfortunate, to say the very least, that this thread has attempted to discuss two separate issues as if they were inextricably linked:

1. The issue of whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children – which deserves discussion in its own right; and

2. The issue of whether religious organisations should be allowed to continue to apply their own standards in selecting suitable parents for adoption purposes (and please note that its ‘religious organisations’ because the Church of England has adopted a very similar stance to the Roman Catholic one).

I have no intention of defending the actions or the moral assumptions of the Roman Catholic Church – it is an organisation that, from personal experience, I loathe and despise. It has, however, been open and honest about its position on this issue, as opposed to the customary mealy-mouthed C-of-E mumblings.

Whilst the Islamic view that same sex relationships are ‘sinful’ is a nonsense, to someone like me who is without religious belief, the view that "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. Therefore, rightly or wrongly (having never experienced such desires), I tend to regard homosexuality as a lifestyle ‘choice’

 

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.

As a father – and I consider myself to be a loving and caring father – who has successfully helped to raise 4 children of his own + 2 step-children, I would be horrified at the thought of any of them being cared for by a same-sex couple in my absence. I can not help that – it is a deep-rooted feeling that will never change.

I honestly believe that putting a child into the care of adoptive homosexual couples should only be considered as a last resort. Quite simply, the ideal situation is for a growing child to have both a male and female influence on their upbringing.

 

Although it may be something of a side issue; with the increasing number of one-parent families in today’s society (especially in the UK) I can easily accept that most single parents do an excellent job of raising their children – they are their own flesh& blood and they care for them deeply, which is the most important thing in a child’s life.

 

On the second issue – that of whether the Churches should be allowed an opt-out – my opinion is that they should. Most of the children given to such organisations for adoption are, I expect, from families who followed that particular belief system and would, had they been able, have raised their children within it. Therefore, it seems that the parents’ wishes are being denied if their children are to be placed in the care of people whose lifestyles that may very well be anathema to them.

 

A third issue which has emerged – but is very much a distraction – is that of civilisations which have suffered the consequences of excessive libertarianism. I would just like to point out that it was not me who mentioned either Greece or Rome in this context (although there can be little doubt that the ‘comfort zone’ each of them reached – and the consequent weakening of the original driving force of their civilisations, was a contributing factor).

[Mr. Sausages]

Therefore, rightly or wrongly (having never experienced such desires), I tend to regard homosexuality as a lifestyle ‘choice’

'Such desires' as physical attraction? Have you ever fancied someone? Did you 'choose' to fancy them, or did you just realise one day that you fancied them?

 

If that person was a bloke, you're gay. It's as simple as that.

[Lonan3]

Therefore, rightly or wrongly (having never experienced such desires), I tend to regard homosexuality as a lifestyle ‘choice’

'Such desires' as physical attraction? Have you ever fancied someone? Did you 'choose' to fancy them, or did you just realise one day that you fancied them?

 

If that person was a bloke, you're gay. It's as simple as that.

I accept that you have a greater degree of simplicity - as evidenced by your ability to take quotes entirely out of context.