Want to tell us about your experiences using The Mix and be in with a chance of winning a £200 Amazon Voucher? Click here to go to our survey!
We are now trialing a points system in an effort to be clearer about the consequences for breaking community guidelines. Head over to this thread to find out more and give your feedback :)

The Catholic Church blackmails the government on gay rights

1246711

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What money ear marked for Catholic Church projects? They don't get any.

    The Church won't dump the children it looks after, it will continue to do so and pass the responsibilty for finding them families back to local authorities.

    We can only hope if this law goes ahead that the Church agencies will continue to support couples that want to adopt when they take on social services.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Actually, to be exact, homosexuality isn't an abomination. Homosexual sex is. Homosexual sex is only an abomination because it is sex outside of marriage- gays can't get married.

    That's a rather circular argument.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I think that a child needs both a male and a female parent.


    So you disapprove of one parent families as well?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    So on one hand you're telling the Church that they should accept the law or pull out, and on the other hand you're condemning the Church for being forced into making the choice.

    How ridiculous.
    No. I'm saying the Church should accept the law and continue what they were doing.

    The Church shouldn't have to make a choice. If they do, or threaten to do, then they are not fit run adoption agencies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    So you disapprove of one parent families as well?

    I wouldn't allow a single person to adopt, or have artificial insemination, no, in exactly the same way I don't think gay people should be given access to IVF or adoption.

    I don't "disapprove" of single parents, but they're a long way from the ideal, and I don't think they should be encouraged. If life means that someone ends up a single parent than that's tough shit, I wouldn't take their kids off them or condemn them, but I wouldn't start placing adoptive children with them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No. I'm saying the Church should accept the law and continue what they were doing.

    Why should they accept a law that goes against their whole moral code?

    I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, so why should they?
    The Church shouldn't have to make a choice.

    I agree. This shitty law shouldn't have gotten anywhere near the statute books.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin, I'm going to agree to disagree with you as our viewpoints on religion are so different that this discussion isn't working. The Catholic faith is an interpretation of the Bible, Jehovah Witnesses are another, Judaism is another (that only uses part of it).

    If someone is going to follow the Bible, they have to pick and chose because like I believe you have stated it contradicts itself in places.
    Actually they don't have to pick and choose at all. They can always go the fundamentalist way.

    But if they decide to pick and choose, why are they picking on homosexual acts but not on eating shellfish? That they are choosing to pick on homosexuals but ignoring other acts deemed sinful and even abominable clearly indicates they are acting out of their own bigotry and homophobia rather than having anything to do with their religious beliefs. Either both homosexual acts and eating shellfish are abominable, or neither is.
    There is nothing in Catholiscism about Shellfish

    Catholicism is ultimately ruled by the Bible, isn't it?

    Check out Lev. 11:10
    I take it you've seen today that the C of E is taking the same stance.
    Yes. Not for the same time, different faiths unite in bigotry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Why should they accept a law that goes against their whole moral code?

    I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, so why should they?
    Because they're supposed to be looking after children. Nobody is asking them to sodomise each other.

    Their beliefs should be kept private. Child welfare is above religious beliefs.
    I agree. This shitty law shouldn't have gotten anywhere near the statute books.
    Of course. Let queers be kicked out of restaurants and hotels and shops and denied services. Heaven forbid we offend the beliefs of hoteliers and bar managers... :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Why should they accept a law that goes against their whole moral code?

    I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, so why should they?

    They wouldn't, and they're not.

    My moral code isn't based on selectively chosen passages from the antiquated social stigmas, superstitions and frequently utter nonsense purported by the bible. The fact that bigotry has been turned into religious doctrine by the bible holds no weight with me whatsoever. Also, i'm required to operate within the law, regardless of my personal morals.

    If the BNP setup an adoption agency, refusing to deal with non-white parents or children, there'd be absolute uproar, and rightly so.

    The argument that because the Catholic Church is currently practising bigotry, so it should remain unchallenged, is ludicrous. Change for the better would never happen if we all had that mentality.

    Still, if the Catholics' toys are taking a plunge over the side of the pram, then they should be allowed to continue what they're doing for the sake of the children in question.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Why should they accept a law that goes against their whole moral code?

    I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, so why should they?

    Plenty of laws are against my moral code - I'm still expected to comply with them. Why should religion get special treatment?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I wouldn't allow a single person to adopt, or have artificial insemination, no, in exactly the same way I don't think gay people should be given access to IVF or adoption.

    I don't "disapprove" of single parents, but they're a long way from the ideal, and I don't think they should be encouraged. If life means that someone ends up a single parent than that's tough shit, I wouldn't take their kids off them or condemn them, but I wouldn't start placing adoptive children with them.

    Fair enough. However you do know that the nuclear family is a fairly recent social development?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How recent is recent and what do you mean by a nuclear family?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Plenty of laws are against my moral code - I'm still expected to comply with them. Why should religion get special treatment?

    It remains to be seen if they will get special treatment. The Church is simply saying that if the law and its moral code are in conflict it will remove itself from the conflict. That's fair enough, IMHO.
    Fair enough. However you do know that the nuclear family is a fairly recent social development?

    I am well aware of that, although it does, of course, depend on what you mean by "recent" and by "nuclear". The lack of support from extended family and the community is certainly a recent thing (last fifty years), and has caused a lot of problems with anti-social behaviour, but having a male and a female parent isn't so recent. With a strong extended support network a child will be able to survive not having two parents; without one it probably won't. It's been proven that single-parenting is contributing immensely to anti-social and criminal behaviour, and its a big problem because single parents aren't getting the support they need to raise their children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The fact that bigotry has been turned into religious doctrine by the bible holds no weight with me whatsoever.
    I agree. I really couldn't give a shit if someone wants to define their bigotry as their "religious beliefs" or just their opinions and viewpoints, as long as everyone has to follow the same rules.

    Incidentally, no-one's mentioned the point that it is only gay couples that the Catholic adoption agencies seem to have a problem with. Apparently, they have no problem placing children with single gay and straight guardians.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree. I really couldn't give a shit if someone wants to define their bigotry as their "religious beliefs" or just their opinions and viewpoints, as long as everyone has to follow the same rules.

    Incidentally, no-one's mentioned the point that it is only gay couples that the Catholic adoption agencies seem to have a problem with. Apparently, they have no problem placing children with single gay and straight guardians.

    Maybe it's to do with the absurd notion that being homosexual is fine, as long as you don't act on in. I mean seriously, you couldn't make it up. It's like the God of the Old Testament putting people to test all over again.

    "I'm ok with you being gay, but you're only allowed to look, no touchy"

    It reminds me of the story where God tells that chap to put his only son to death, only to tell him he was just messing at the last minute.

    Prankster God!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Because they're supposed to be looking after children. Nobody is asking them to sodomise each other.

    Their beliefs should be kept private. Child welfare is above religious beliefs.

    So if you run an adoption agency would you allow somebody who is a known racist adopt a child from you?
    NO and that is because you believe that racism is wrong as I do also.
    What you said is that any beliefs you have should be pushed to one side in order to find children a home.
    The racist could provide a caring home for the child but HONESTLY, Can you say you'd let that Racist Adopt?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How recent is recent and what do you mean by a nuclear family?

    The nuclear family is a sociological term meaning what is also called the cereal packet family, consisting of 2 married heterosexual adults and 1 or more children (can be adopted children).
    It didn't come around as recently as you think.It is a post industrialisation family designed to be able to move around quickly in order to find work. This is according to Talcott Parsons (WANKER), a functionalist sociologist who also made theories that the adults within this family should have different roles. Males should have what he called the instrumental role, which is the breadwinner and Women should have the expressive role, basicly meaning domesticated slave. Now you see why I put wanker next to his name. It's also a conservative theory and their favourite type of family.

    I myself believe in family diversity and equality between the sexes. I grew up with no father and a lot of other family around me and I turned out fine. What is wrong with single parents adopting children if they provide a caring home? Same with Homosexuals? I still don't see it right to force the hand of an adoption agency on something they truly believe and until about 60 years ago, were willing to kill people for. All other agencies fine, no problem with it but trying to force someone to do something benefits nobody involved.

    Until this debate I was never one to side with Catholics as they are still mysogenist pricks but I wouldn't encroach on anothers religious beliefs as I have had mine encroached on time and time again in my life.
    If it is a questions of ethics then I agree that Homosexuals should be able to adopt from all agencies but it is not. It is a core belief of the worlds major religions that Homosexuality is wrong and while they are running adoption agencies then that must be respected. Unfortunately Catholics do have this ideology but do you want to tell the entire Christian and Catholic population of the world that they are wrong? Then go tell the Muslims and the Jews etc.
    My opinion on all of their crap is wait and see. Who knows, maybe I won't see you all in hell along with me. Maybe we'll be having a Barbeque with the devil.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ghost18 wrote: »
    So if you run an adoption agency would you allow somebody who is a known racist adopt a child from you?
    NO and that is because you believe that racism is wrong as I do also.
    What you said is that any beliefs you have should be pushed to one side in order to find children a home.
    The racist could provide a caring home for the child but HONESTLY, Can you say you'd let that Racist Adopt?

    If its good for the child I would. I'd also let gays adopt or single parents. I don't think any of these are as good for the child as a married man and woman marrying (and ones with a well paid job rather than unemployed). But they are probably all better than either fostering, being in long-term care or being left with a biological parent who doesn't want you.

    in the end adoption isn't about dealing with perfection (perfect world all children would be deliberately concieved by people who wanted and cared for them). Its about the best way to deal with the imperfect and messy world we live in.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ghost18 wrote: »
    So if you run an adoption agency would you allow somebody who is a known racist adopt a child from you?
    NO and that is because you believe that racism is wrong as I do also.
    What you said is that any beliefs you have should be pushed to one side in order to find children a home.
    The racist could provide a caring home for the child but HONESTLY, Can you say you'd let that Racist Adopt?
    You're not comparing racists to homosexuals are you?

    It doesn't matter what someone "believes". There is nothing wrong with homosexuals adopting children. Adoption agencies should not take personal beliefs by the people that run them into account when evaluating potential parents. End of.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So in that example you would let the racist adopt?

    And no, I am not equating racism with Homosexuality. Just merely giving an example where your beliefs would be called into question.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well if the parents are deemed suitable perhaps I would let them adopt, yes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ghost18 wrote: »
    The nuclear family is a sociological term meaning what is also called the cereal packet family, consisting of 2 married heterosexual adults and 1 or more children (can be adopted children).
    It didn't come around as recently as you think.It is a post industrialisation family designed to be able to move around quickly in order to find work. This is according to Talcott Parsons (WANKER), a functionalist sociologist who also made theories that the adults within this family should have different roles. Males should have what he called the instrumental role, which is the breadwinner and Women should have the expressive role, basicly meaning domesticated slave. Now you see why I put wanker next to his name. It's also a conservative theory and their favourite type of family..

    Except that this conflicts with the fact that we know that there was family and marriage before post-industrialisation and that at least in European culture (or Christianity if you prefer) that most people lived together with two parents (man and women) and children (who normally lived at home until either marriage, apprenticeship, death etc. (given that during much of this time buggery was a capital offence there would be a lack of homosexual adopting)

    In most of these societies the man and women did different work (specialisation if you prefer) and only with a few classes and specific times would they work together (eg harvest time would have most people in the village male and female involved). The more wealthy families the wife would be in charge of domesticate matters and the husband the breadwinner (either because he was a skilled labourer or he owned land for which others paid a rent). But the domestic servants would still remain primarily women and the farm workers/craftsmen working for the Lord remain primarily men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except that this conflicts with the fact that we know that there was family and marriage before post-industrialisation and that at least in European culture (or Christianity if you prefer) that most people lived together with two parents (man and women) and children (who normally lived at home until either marriage, apprenticeship, death etc. (given that during much of this time buggery was a capital offence there would be a lack of homosexual adopting)

    In most of these societies the man and women did different work (specialisation if you prefer) and only with a few classes and specific times would they work together (eg harvest time would have most people in the village male and female involved). The more wealthy families the wife would be in charge of domesticate matters and the husband the breadwinner (either because he was a skilled labourer or he owned land for which others paid a rent). But the domestic servants would still remain primarily women and the farm workers/craftsmen working for the Lord remain primarily men.

    Yet in pre industrial times the women did the same jobs as men. same with the children because their workplace was there home and everyone pulled together to get things done.
    It was only in industrial times when children were banned from working in factories that women stopped working. This was because someone needed to look after the children. A role which, in the mysogenist society, was lumped upon women rather than men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Well if the parents are deemed suitable perhaps I would let them adopt, yes.

    Would you deem a fully-signed-up member of the BNP as suitable?

    If you didn't think they were suitable, would you be happy if someone forced you to let them adopt?

    I wouldn't ban gays and single people for adopting for the reasons Flasheart said- but they should be right at the back of the queue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Well if the parents are deemed suitable perhaps I would let them adopt, yes.

    Don't you realise that this whole discussion is based around those two words "deemed suitable"? And who it is that takes responsibility for making that decision?

    Like I have said before, I disagree with the Church's stance, however it is consistent with their views on homosexuality. Your problem here is that you are trying to apply your morals to their problem and forget that they don't think like you do and so the application is false.

    @ Blagsta, I don't think that the religious agency should be above the law, I believe that the law shouldn't be there in the first place. It's unnecessary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its about the best way to deal with the imperfect and messy world we live in.

    From what I know of people working in child protection, I'm sure they'd agree - the reality is that there aren't anywhere near enough foster parents or people willing to adopt a child over a very young age. Not nearly enough - and let's be clear, many peoples' experience of care homes is not positive (just to completely unexaggerate the huge problems that current exsist in the care system).

    The list isn't overflowing, it's almost non-exsistent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only in certain specialist jobs and specialist areas. Even when couples worked together men and women would typically do different parts of the jobs and in many cases it was the men provided the skilled work and the woman doing some unskilled support and then supporting the man by cooking, cleaning, looking after children.

    Admittedly there were exceptions (records for the Agincourt expedition for example mention at least one women amongst the suppliers contracted to provide equipment for the English)

    At the same time all this seems to say is that working patterns have changed - not that families haven't usually consisted of a man and woman who live together and have children which they bring up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    At the same time all this seems to say is that working patterns have changed - not that families haven't usually consisted of a man and woman who live together and have children which they bring up.

    I wasn't arguing against that. Talcott Parsons (WANKER) said that the pre-industrial family was extended because they needed all hands available to work.
    But there can't have been that many extended families in pre-industrial England as people died quite young, around 40 unless you were rich.
    I was giving an explanation of the nuclear family in the theory of which it is known by best. A theory which I disagree with on many grounds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is anyone stopping gay people adopting elsewhere?

    No, if a Catholic adoption agency only lets a hetrosexual couple adopt then so be it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Is anyone stopping gay people adopting elsewhere?

    No, if a Catholic adoption agency only lets a hetrosexual couple adopt then so be it.
    What's the difference between that and a hotel run by white supremacists not admitting people because of the colour of their skin?

    Or do you approve of that too?
Sign In or Register to comment.