Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

The Catholic Church blackmails the government on gay rights

15791011

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you look back over the thread you'll see that I’m not advocating bringing this law into fruition. You’ve drawn a line in the sand, and so have I. Mine just appears to be a little further up the beach.

    You’ve misrepresented my argument as well. I don’t wish to stifle people’s right to be a dick-head, through legislation or any other means. I do think, however, that when the especially irrational and non-thinking prejudices of a given organisation (or individual) spill over into the thinking man’s world, then my right not be suffer at the hands of these social relics, outweighs their right to be a cunt. I don’t think that equates a descent into fascism either.

    It isn't spilling over into your world (and certainly isn't spilling over to the thinking man's world either) and you're not suffering. The Catholic Church isn't saying that gays couple shouldn't adopt. they're saying that they do not believe that gay couples are suitable to be adoptive parents and that the Catholic Church shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs. If you're gay and want to adopt you can go to another agency who does believe that its alright for gays to adopt.

    And whilst its not a descent into fascism (at least in the accurate use of the word facism) it does seem to be that its putting the power of the state above the right of individual conscience for no good reason.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The latter is in practice equal to the natural norm. The former isn't.
    Conception has nothing to do with bringing up children.

    As it has been mentioned before on this thread the nuclear family concept is fairly recent in human history. Indeed, children in some tribes have been raised by the entire community. There is no 'natural' way to raise a child. Or rather, not 'unnatural' way.


    It's not essential - but it's surely preferable for a child to have a mother and a father.
    Not necessarily. And even if it were, it's preferable to give the child to loving a stable single parent or a same-sex couple sooner than keeping the child in care longer until the perfect, Church-sanctioned, god-fearing, married, nuclear family pops up.


    I don't think there have been many studies that carry much weight. But, I can't really think of any reason to question something supported by hundreds of years of experience - that it's ideal for a child to have a mother and a father.
    Ideal is a rather abstract concept. I can tell you, for example, that it is a lot more ideal for a child to be with a loving same-sex couple than with a loveless straight couple.

    Which brings us to the bottom line: adoption should be granted on individual cases. Not on whether the applicant(s) are straight, gay, married, "living in sin" or single.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't spilling over into your world (and certainly isn't spilling over to the thinking man's world either) and you're not suffering. The Catholic Church isn't saying that gays couple shouldn't adopt. they're saying that they do not believe that gay couples are suitable to be adoptive parents and that the Catholic Church shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs. If you're gay and want to adopt you can go to another agency who does believe that its alright for gays to adopt.

    And whilst its not a descent into fascism (at least in the accurate use of the word facism) it does seem to be that its putting the power of the state above the right of individual conscience for no good reason.

    If the state was denying black people the ability to adopt based on some antiquated law they’d not seen fit to change since the days of slavery, people would be foaming at the mouth. However, by your logic, you’d just say “it’s ok, there’s another adoption agency that allows black people to adopt, so there’s nothing wrong here”. In fact you’d go as far as to justify it, citing the fact that the state isn’t telling black people they can’t adopt, they just can’t adopt through them, because according to the law, they’re second class citizens.

    I’m going to reiterate one last time because I’m getting tired of this debate. The Catholic Church is purporting a bigoted view as religious one. It’s not right. People ignore it though because religion enjoys carte blanche on bigoted views, presumably because they’ve been entrenched in doctrine for so long.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't spilling over into your world (and certainly isn't spilling over to the thinking man's world either) and you're not suffering. The Catholic Church isn't saying that gays couple shouldn't adopt. they're saying that they do not believe that gay couples are suitable to be adoptive parents and that the Catholic Church shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs. If you're gay and want to adopt you can go to another agency who does believe that its alright for gays to adopt.
    Substitute 'gays' with 'blacks' and 'Catholic Church' with 'hotel' and tell me that's alright with you as well.

    I'm really lost for words as to why some people think bigotry and prejudice are okay if you wrap them around the concept of 'religous beliefs'.
    And whilst its not a descent into fascism (at least in the accurate use of the word facism) it does seem to be that its putting the power of the state above the right of individual conscience for no good reason.
    Not quite. No one is banning them from thinking or indeed saying homosexuals are filthy sinners not suitable to raise children. But if the Catholic Church chooses to be involved in child adoptions then they must put their personal beliefs aside and be fair to everyone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the state was denying black people the ability to adopt based on some antiquated law they’d not seen fit to change since the days of slavery, people would be foaming at the mouth. However, by your logic, you’d just say “it’s ok, there’s another adoption agency that allows black people to adopt, so there’s nothing wrong here”. In fact you’d go as far as to justify it, citing the fact that the state isn’t telling black people they can’t adopt, they just can’t adopt through them, because according to the law, they’re second class citizens.

    I’m going to reiterate one last time because I’m getting tired of this debate. The Catholic Church is purporting a bigoted view as religious one. It’s not right. People ignore it though because religion enjoys carte blanche on bigoted views, presumably because they’ve been entrenched in doctrine for so long.


    Except the state isn't denying gays the right to adopt is it? And that's the point because the state allows them there is no reason that the state should overule people's own consciences to force them into doing so.

    And you can reiterate all you want because your argument comes down to the fact that people can be free to have their own believes as long as you believe the same thing to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Substitute 'gays' with 'blacks' and 'Catholic Church' with 'hotel' and tell me that's alright with you as well.

    I'm really lost for words as to why some people think bigotry and prejudice are okay if you wrap them around the concept of 'religous beliefs'.

    Irrelevant, because frankly its not the same argument at all is it?
    Not quite. No one is banning them from thinking or indeed saying homosexuals are filthy sinners not suitable to raise children. But if the Catholic Church chooses to be involved in child adoptions then they must put their personal beliefs aside and be fair to everyone

    Except they believe they wouldn't be being fair to everyone - they believe that it would be unfair to the children.

    That said my argument isn't whether the Catholic Church is right or whether there position is morally defensible. My argument is that the state has no good reason to overule people's consciences and beliefs given that there are alternative ways for people to adopt children which doesn't involve the Catholic church.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    But if the Catholic Church chooses to be involved in child adoptions then they must put their personal beliefs aside and be fair to everyone.

    With the exclusion of anyone who is Catholic of course.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except the state isn't denying gays the right to adopt is it? And that's the point because the state allows them there is no reason that the state should overule people's own consciences to force them into doing so.

    And you can reiterate all you want because your argument comes down to the fact that people can be free to have their own believes as long as you believe the same thing to.

    I think you've missed the point entirely. Of course the state isn't denying blacks/gays the right to adopt, i was fielding you a theoretical comparison. One which you've completely side-stepped.

    No, i think you've made assumptions on what you believe my point is. I'll explicitly state it for you, in order that you can put the straw-man down.

    I don't take issue with what you think or believe. You're entitled to your own beliefs, regardless how how silly they might be. It's when your predjudices step out of of your head and start directly effecting people, then it's time to sit up and take notice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Irrelevant, because frankly its not the same argument at all is it?

    Of course it is. It just sounds worse when you use an example of bigotry which isn't part of religious doctrine.

    It's a bizarre phenomenon.

    I hate gay = nasty bigot
    Church hates gays = no problem at all
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you've missed the point entirely. Of course the state isn't denying blacks/gays the right to adopt, i was fielding you a theoretical comparison. One which you've completely side-stepped.

    No - I just feel when discussing real issues it may be better to discuss real issues rather than waste time what we would do in hypothetical situations if the moon is made of blue cheese.
    No, i think you've made assumptions on what you believe my point is. I'll explicitly state it for you, in order that you can put the straw-man down.

    I don't take issue with what you think or believe. You're entitled to your own beliefs, regardless how how silly they might be. It's when your predjudices step out of of your head and start directly effecting people, then it's time to sit up and take notice

    4% of adoptions are through catholic agencies (admittedly more hard to place) - so its not really directly effecting anyone if they say they don't want to place with gay couples because there are plenty of other options available.

    Of course by making catholics be forced into going against their beliefs its having a direct effect on them, but I guess that's not what you mean when you say
    it's time to sit up and take notice

    You might also if your talking about prejudice read Nick Robinson's comments - especially the last three paragraphs...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course it is. It just sounds worse when you use an example of bigotry which isn't part of religious doctrine.

    It's a bizarre phenomenon.

    I hate gay = nasty bigot
    Church hates gays = no problem at all


    Personally I hate the Catholic Church. But I defend their right to have views which both I and state dislike.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Believing that it is ideal (but certainly not essential) for children to be raised in a natural context with a mother and a father seems a rational and acceptable view to hold.

    I'm wondering what you mean by "natural" here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Irrelevant, because frankly its not the same argument at all is it?
    I think it is when people keep saying 'it doesn't really matter as gays can simply find another agency that will consider them for adoption.

    Well, in that case it doesn't matter if some pubs and hotels hang the 'no blacks' sign because there will be plenty of others that will let them in.

    I think it is indeed the very same argument. At least racists don't try to hide their bigotry behind religious beliefs.


    Except they believe they wouldn't be being fair to everyone - they believe that it would be unfair to the children.

    That said my argument isn't whether the Catholic Church is right or whether there position is morally defensible. My argument is that the state has no good reason to overule people's consciences and beliefs given that there are alternative ways for people to adopt children which doesn't involve the Catholic church.
    We'll have to disagree there. I believe the government should stamp out all forms of prejudice because of race, nationality or sexual orientation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally I hate the Catholic Church. But I defend their right to have views which both I and state dislike.
    So do I. But this goes beyond 'views'. This goes beyond freedom of expression. When they blank out individuals because of their sexual orientation and threaten to close down adoption agencies we're talking about something rather different from simply having beliefs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    I have just taken an extreme disliking to this Guy.
    "Communities Secretary Ruith Kelly only wants temporary exemption for the church."
    MY ARSE THAT'S ALL SHE WANTS. Did someone fail to inform this guy that she is a member of Opus Dei, a very strict form of Catholicism.
    If things were her way being any other religion than a form of Christian would be Illegal, Abortion would be banned, Being homosexual (man or woman) would be illegal.
    BUT Have you noticed that she will never make a statement on self harm? No, because it is a common Opus Dei ritual, just like mass to an ordinary Catholic. I believe they like to dress this up under the term Corporal Mortification.
    I know this was completely off topic but it got me riled so I decided to rant.
    Anyway, now I have seen that then I believe I shall have no further part for or against the Catholic church as I now have a biased opinion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    So do I. But this goes beyond 'views'. This goes beyond freedom of expression. When they blank out individuals because of their sexual orientation and threaten to close down adoption agencies we're talking about something rather different from simply having beliefs.

    They're blanking people because they believe that homosexuality is wrong and it is not in the child's best interests. To keep the adoption agencies open would mean to go against deeply held beliefs - so its not quite as simple as threatening to close them down.

    At the end of the day we either hold out for the view that people should be able to have objectionable beliefs and freedom of conscience or we pack up and go home.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They're blanking people because they believe that homosexuality is wrong and it is not in the child's best interests.
    Actually at no point has the Church said they are concerned about the children's welfare. They have said, repeteadly, that they don't want to consider gays for adoption because of their religious beliefs.
    Nowhere in the Bible it says that gays shouldn't adopt children (to the best of my knowledge anyway). So basically, the Bible has one or two versicles that say 'gays are bad m'kay' and this is the excuse the Church is using to blank them out. It clashes with their beliefs. Simple as. Nothing to do with the welfare of the children.

    At the end of the day we either hold out for the view that people should be able to have objectionable beliefs and freedom of conscience or we pack up and go home.
    They do already. Nobody is banning them from having beliefs. But a line can and should be drawn somewhere when those beliefs are used to prejudice others.

    Should we ban racist fuckwits from refusing a person entry to a pub, shop or hotel because of the colour of their skin? Of course we should. And every last person who agrees with that but then says the Church has the right to discriminate somebody because of their sexual orientation is guilty of double standards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, it has been suggested that the churches should continue running the adoption agencies and take gay couples. Which is stopping them practising their beliefs.

    Have you ever heard the saying, 'What would Jesus do?'. Would he care more about giving children a loving home, or about upholding his moral principles that gays are wrong? Not having a go, just saying, the church can say it's protecting it's principles all it likes, but I tell you what - the welfare of children should come first. According to the gospel, we can't judge - only God can (as far as I'm aware) - but what the hell would Jesus and co say to the bishop who were closing down adoption services that were giving kids a second chance? Because of some random thing in the bible. There's a lot of shit written in the bible, and it purely depends upon the sociological context. This is/i] homophobia dressed up as religion.

    Anyway, who cares what the Catholic Church thinks? Homosexuals are born that way as much as any other person is born with blue eyes or with a penis instead of a vagina. So they have every right as people who will love and support a child throughout it's life, and as a 'civilised' nation we should push to make sure they have that right. If the Church doesn't like the legislation, oh well. It's not our fault, it's entirely theirs, and as much as they try and say it's because of what they believe, they're liars.

    Most Roman Catholics I know (and I know a lot) have nothing against gays. Of course, when they suspected I was sleeping with my girlfriend at a young age (16), that got heated, but for all they know I'm still a virgin :angel: but yea. In the real world, when a child needs a loving family, will God judge it to be wrong that it is a father and a father, or a mother and a mother, rather than a mother and a father? We are all created in 'his image', so therefore we are all the same, no?

    The bible contradicts itself so much that the church can say whatever it likes and say 'because the bible tells us to'. Throughout history this has, and most likely will continue to be. Real faith isn't with the church, it's inside yourself. The Vatican etc. is just a political device really, and it's whims and will change with the wind. In 50 years, who knows, they might support homosexuality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Actually at no point has the Church said they are concerned about the children's welfare. They have said, repeteadly, that they don't want to consider gays for adoption because of their religious beliefs.
    Nowhere in the Bible it says that gays shouldn't adopt children (to the best of my knowledge anyway). So basically, the Bible has one or two versicles that say 'gays are bad m'kay' and this is the excuse the Church is using to blank them out. It clashes with their beliefs. Simple as. Nothing to do with the welfare of the children.

    But if you believe homosexuality is a sin it stands to reason you think its not in the interests of children to be brought up by them.

    They do already. Nobody is banning them from having beliefs. But a line can and should be drawn somewhere when those beliefs are used to prejudice others.

    We disagree with where the line is drawn.
    Should we ban racist fuckwits from refusing a person entry to a pub, shop or hotel because of the colour of their skin? Of course we should. And every last person who agrees with that but then says the Church has the right to discriminate somebody because of their sexual orientation is guilty of double standards

    Of course I'm guilty of double standards - everyone is. I could throw in lots of arguments about whether you believe the state should ban people from calling for the legalisation of drugs or the banning of extreme left wing groups and if you disagree point out that you calling for the state to overule people's conscience's in other matters...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But if you believe homosexuality is a sin it stands to reason you think its not in the interests of children to be brought up by them.
    In that case, seeing as one of the core principles of Christianity is that we are all sinners, the Catholic Church should not consider anyone at all for adoption.

    But it does considers all other sorts of sinners. Which reconfirms the fact that it is acting out of bigotry, homophobia and prejudice rather than having the best interests of the children at heart.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally I hate the Catholic Church. But I defend their right to have views which both I and state dislike.

    People may have 'views' but if these views are discriminatory or harmful, the 'views' should be legislated against. There is a minority of Muslims whose 'view' is that they want Sharia law in Britain - so homosexuals, women who have sex out of marriage, etc would be stoned to death and thieves will have their hands amputated. You still defend these 'views'?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    People may have 'views' but if these views are discriminatory or harmful, the 'views' should be legislated against. There is a minority of Muslims whose 'view' is that they want Sharia law in Britain - so homosexuals, women who have sex out of marriage, etc would be stoned to death and thieves will have their hands amputated. You still defend these 'views'?

    I certainly defend their right to have them and defend the use of Sharia law in contracts between two consenting parties (its not all about adultery and stoning)

    But you and others are arguing counter-factuals - (what I would do if...) and obviously if the facts are different people are going to argue different things - its basing an argument on its individual merits.

    Now if the facts were different (eg 95% of all adoptions were done through the Catholic Church) so would my argument. But if you cannot argue for the state acting against people's consciences in this case, you're not really winning a debate by saying 'but you'd act differently if the facts were different' because of course I would.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But it's acting according to their 'conscience' or beliefs is it?

    Not a single person here or anywhere else has been able to successfully counter these points:

    - The Catholic Church wants to exclude homosexuals because otherwise it would clash with their 'religious beliefs'. At no point the welfare of the children has been mentioned.

    - But then the Catholic Church doesn't exclude any other type of sinners (we are all sinners according to them, so nobody should qualify for adoption). Not even other types of sinners specifically named and singled out in the Bible (the rich, those who work on the Sabbath, those who eat shellfish) are rejected.

    - Which proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Church is not acting out of concern for the children and not even because it would clash with its beliefs (if that was the case it would exclude the aformentioned sinners as well wouldn't it?) but because it's homophobic, bigoted and prejudiced. And as such the government is 100% right in denying them the right to continue to discriminate against homosexuals. Because it has nothing to do with the welfare of the children, and nothing to do with religious beliefs.

    Case closed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote:
    People may have 'views' but if these views are discriminatory or harmful, the 'views' should be legislated against.

    Who defines what is "discriminatory" or "harmful", though? You? Me? Aladdin? Peter Tatchell? The Pope?

    What all this boils down to is the sinister atheistic cabal in Government wanting to force everyone to think exactly the same way as they do. I don't agree with the Church's stance on homosexuality in general, just as I don't agree with their stance on many things (pre-marital sex, condoms, female clergy), but I believe that it is their right to choose. Why on earth would a gay couple be approaching the Catholic Care adoption agencies for children anyway, if not to make a political point.

    The State doesn't want discrimination, and that's fine. The Church is saying they won't discriminate- they won't deal with anyone, and will be fair and open in their non-dealing. That's what the State is after- equal treatment, and that's what the State is getting. I fail to see why it is "blackmail"- the Church is merely pointing out the consequences of this ill-thought-out and un-needed legislative change.

    The Church is already adequately caring for children within the law. The law is being changed, and a conflict is being imposed on it. The Church is resolving the conflict in the only way it can whilst staying within the law.

    The "religious beliefs" are that 1) homosexual sex is a sin and 2) that the family should comprise of a male and a female who are married.

    The ball is in the State's court, as it always has been. The State has chosen that this law is more important than the children in Church care. That's fine, but don't go blaming the Church for a law they don't want, didn't ask for, and don't have to abide by now.

    This whole debate shows nothing but abject religious intolerance, which isn't a surprise on this board, really. If you want this pointless law so much you have the pointless law, but don't fucking whinge about it when everyone stops doing things just so they don't fall foul of it.

    I don't think gays should adopt unless there's nobody else, and I don't think the Chuch should have to let them. If the law states that they have to treat everyone the same then the Church should not deal with anyone, which is the equality the law demands.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    - The Catholic Church wants to exclude homosexuals because otherwise it would clash with their 'religious beliefs'. At no point the welfare of the children has been mentioned.

    1. The Govt wants to enforce and equality law because it doesn't believe in discrimination. At no point has the welfare of the children been mentioned.

    2. Once again, but you seem to ignore this, the believe that homosexuality is an abomination. That is why they refuse to place children because they don't want children exposed to it and therefore they are thinking of the child's welfare
    - But then the Catholic Church doesn't exclude any other type of sinners (we are all sinners according to them, so nobody should qualify for adoption). Not even other types of sinners specifically named and singled out in the Bible (the rich, those who work on the Sabbath, those who eat shellfish) are rejected.

    3. For some reason discrimination against Catholics and ther beliefs is okay and would actually be enforceable under this law. Funnily enough smiliar exclusions apply to other laws in this country which take into account religious sensibilities. For example crash helmet laws.

    4. This whole thread is based on a hatred of Catholicism. They are wrong to adopt in such a way but they are also wrong not to. Funny how we never see thread from the same OP about the other religions who are actually supporting the Catholic Church on it's stance here...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The "religious beliefs" are that 1) homosexual sex is a sin and 2) that the family should comprise of a male and a female who are married.

    Bullshit. They have no problem giving children to single parents of any sexuality. Explain that one.

    I assume therefore that you believe that a Catholic school (which like Catholic adoption agencies, recieves some state funding) would be completely correct to remove any form of sex education that didn't focus entirely on their 'sex outside of marriage is wrong' opinion? Because that is also going against their religious beliefs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullshit. They have no problem giving children to single parents of any sexuality. Explain that one.

    Not Catholic care homes, as far as I know of.

    But homosexuality is the big one- homosexual sex is a big sin, and they don't want children exposed to it. It's not a view I share but they are thinking of the child's welfare according to their moral code. Something which the Government isn't doing by attempting to force this law through. The Catholic Church, if forced to choose, will back down from breaking the law by not dealing with anyone. That's the aim of the law- equal treatment.
    I assume therefore that you believe that a Catholic school (which like Catholic adoption agencies, recieves some state funding) would be completely correct to remove any form of sex education that didn't focus entirely on their 'sex outside of marriage is wrong' opinion? Because that is also going against their religious beliefs.

    They don't receive that much state funding- certainly my old school received about 1/3 less than neighbouring schools, and had better results.

    I think that they should be allowed to dictate teaching policy. If the parents don't like what their kids are being taught they shouldn't send their kids there.

    Of course this Government is vehemently anti-choice, though- it wants all us sheeple to think the same (like Blair), vote the same (like Blair) and act the same (like Blair).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    1. The Govt wants to enforce and equality law because it doesn't believe in discrimination. At no point has the welfare of the children been mentioned.
    However it will be benefiting the children all the same by shortening up the time it takes for them to be adopted. More potential parents = quicker adoption.
    2. Once again, but you seem to ignore this, the believe that homosexuality is an abomination. That is why they refuse to place children because they don't want children exposed to it and therefore they are thinking of the child's welfare
    According to the Bible eating shellfish also is an abomination. However you won't catch the Catholic Church banning lobster fanciers from adopting children.

    Which proves, MoK, that this has precisely fuck all to do with the welfare of the children. Otherwise the Church would clearly not want to send children to abominable people who eat shellfish. Or who work on the Sabbath. Or who are wealthy.


    3. For some reason discrimination against Catholics and ther beliefs is okay and would actually be enforceable under this law. Funnily enough smiliar exclusions apply to other laws in this country which take into account religious sensibilities. For example crash helmet laws.
    How exactly do you work out Catholics are being discriminated? :confused::confused::confused:
    4. This whole thread is based on a hatred of Catholicism. They are wrong to adopt in such a way but they are also wrong not to. Funny how we never see thread from the same OP about the other religions who are actually supporting the Catholic Church on it's stance here...
    No. This thread is about hatred of homosexuals by a profoundly homophobic, prejudiced and bigoted organisation.

    And in any event, at no point I have mentioned Catholics at large. I know plenty of them who spit on the views the Catholic Church has on many issues from homosexuality to contraception.

    I hope you're not reverting to a religious version of 'anti-Americanism' claims (i.e. if you criticise the government/organisation in charge of something you're criticising an entire people).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    However it will be benefiting the children all the same by shortening up the time it takes for them to be adopted. More potential parents = quicker adoption.

    Is that a stated aim of the GOvt? It hasn't been mentioned or even suggested as a reason. Worth noting that this law is actually the work of the EU, rather than our own Govt and is facing challenges elsewhere in Europe. Mainly because it's being pushed on "equality stakes" and not on child welfare one. As usual though our govt is rolling over...
    Which proves, MoK, that this has precisely fuck all to do with the welfare of the children.

    It does? Or does it prove that the Church isn't being presured into offering adoption to shell fish eaters?
    How exactly do you work out Catholics are being discriminated? :confused::confused::confused:

    Lack of religious tolerance perhaps? Freedom of religious expression perhaps?
    And in any event, at no point I have mentioned Catholics at large. ... I hope you're not reverting to a religious version of 'anti-Americanism' claims (i.e. if you criticise the government/organisation in charge of something you're criticising an entire people).

    Read my comments again. I didn't refer to Catholics, i refered to Catholicism. I also pointed out that they are not the only religious body to be following this line yet the only one that you picked on. Why is that do you think? Hatred, predjudice perhaps?

    As I have stated many times, I don't support the Catholic Church's stance on homsexuality. They are being consistent with that stance (whether it's right or wrong). The Govt is pushing through legislation which make them chose between their religious beliefs and breaking the law and the law will always lose there. They threaten to pull out of the adoption business and politically the Govt cannot stand up to them, they know that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It does? Or does it prove that the Church isn't being presured into offering adoption to shell fish eaters?
    Yes it does. You know as well as I that the Catholic Church does not object to people who eat seafood or indeed work in the Sabbath or are rich. They only object to homosexuals adopting. So it has nothing to do with the welfare of the child or even with their religious beliefs (if they did it because of their faith then they would not pick and choose which sinners to consider and which to reject).

    Lack of religious tolerance perhaps? Freedom of religious expression perhaps?
    But they are more than allowed to practice their religion and express their beliefs.

    Being in the adoption business is not a fundamental 'right' (or indeed, a right of any kind) for anyone. It is profoundly wrong to claim that because the government is asking somebody to be fair when it oversees adoption it is restricting their religious beliefs. That has nothing to do with freedom of expression of religious tolerance.


    Read my comments again. I didn't refer to Catholics, i refered to Catholicism. I also pointed out that they are not the only religious body to be following this line yet the only one that you picked on. Why is that do you think? Hatred, predjudice perhaps?
    Er no. The fact, perhaps, that it was the Catholic Church that instigated this?

    If you care to read the last few pages of the thread you will notice at some point another poster mentions that the Church of England had joined the Catholic Church in its protests. And I acknowledge this and call the Church of England bigots as well.
    As I have stated many times, I don't support the Catholic Church's stance on homsexuality. They are being consistent with that stance (whether it's right or wrong)
    But they're not being consistent with their religious beliefs are they???
    The Govt is pushing through legislation which make them chose between their religious beliefs and breaking the law and the law will always lose there.
    Because we're dealing with bigots hiding behind the concept of freedom of religion who are showing they don't give much of a shit about the children they're supposed to look after if it interferes with their all-important, two-millennia-and-counting persecution of sodomites?
Sign In or Register to comment.