Young Carers of The Mix, we need you! Tell us about your experiences of our services and give yourself a chance to win £50 of Amazon vouchers.

The Catholic Church blackmails the government on gay rights

15681011

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    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).

    The constant references to seafood show a great lack of understanding. It would explain the bigotry pouring from your mouth, but as you say in the Jade Goody thread, ignorance is no defence.

    Unrepentant "sinners" get short shrift from the Church, and always have had- a gay couple living together are hardly repenting from their sin.
    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.

    It is restricting their beliefs, but you're right, its not a "right" to run a care home service and provide adoption from them. The Church appreciate this- they won't act outside the law.

    Which is why the Church is saying that if they can't be allowed to work within the law, they won't work at all. You demand that they obey the law saying they have "no right" running adoption services against this law; when they say they won't break the law you condemn them. The Government needs to choose what is more important- the law or the people- and act accordingly. The Church isn't going to let homosexuals adopt and isn't going to break the law, and quite rightly on both counts. As it stands, the Church is offering the equality the law demands. Isn't that enough for you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    isn't shellfish from Leviticus? If so its irrelevant to Catholicism as Leviticus is about rules that Jews should follow rather than Catholics. The case against homosexuality in Christian thought comes as much from the New Testament (ie the teachings of Jesus upon which Christianity is based) and is based on marriage being between one man and one woman.

    Catholicsm holds that celibacy is the best state, but that if you cannot contain your passions you should marry rather than have sex outside marriage.

    Whether you agree or not that is the doctine of the Catholic Church and the lobster argument is a red herring.

    That said I'm not defending Catholic teachings - I'm a Northern Irish Prod and think catholicism has it wrong on so many levels.

    What I am defending is people's right for the state not to interfere in their private beliefs - especially given that there is nothing to stop gay couples adopting through a non-religous agency.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What I am defending is people's right for the state not to interfere in their private beliefs - especially given that there is nothing to stop gay couples adopting through a non-religous agency.

    Unless the Catholic Church can prove that being gay is a choice, then they are being bigoted. If their beliefs do not sit comfortably with accepting that gay people adopting is a better alternative to a child not having any stable parenting at all, then they should not be in the adoption business. Period.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Unless the Catholic Church can prove that being gay is a choice, then they are being bigoted.

    And Aladdin's being bigoted with his constant attacks on the Catholic Church. Life's a bag of shit, ain't it? And yes, homosexual sex is a choice (according to the Church, anyway). It isn't the desire that's the sin, its the act.

    Why on earth would a gay couple be looking to adopt from a Catholic agency, though? Apart from for political reasons?

    I don't think the Church's teaching is right with regards to homosexuality, but I think it should be their choice. But if the law won't accomodate their religious choice they should be free to decide to not do the work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course its a choice or at least the bit that the catholics regard as sinful is a choice. As long as you don't act on your sexual urges the Catholic Church doesn't care - they have nothing against celibacy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    The constant references to seafood show a great lack of understanding. It would explain the bigotry pouring from your mouth, but as you say in the Jade Goody thread, ignorance is no defence.
    Translated as: please stop highlighting the inconsistencies and double standards shown by the Catholic Church as they show they're being prejudiced and that it has nothing to do with their beliefs.
    Unrepentant "sinners" get short shrift from the Church, and always have had- a gay couple living together are hardly repenting from their sin.
    Putting aside the fact that a couple that does not have sex would not be sinning, the rich are not exactly repentant are they? And yet I don't see the Church banning them from adopting, or them giving away their wealth to conform with the teachings of the Bible.



    It is restricting their beliefs, but you're right, its not a "right" to run a care home service and provide adoption from them. The Church appreciate this- they won't act outside the law.

    Which is why the Church is saying that if they can't be allowed to work within the law, they won't work at all. You demand that they obey the law saying they have "no right" running adoption services against this law; when they say they won't break the law you condemn them. The Government needs to choose what is more important- the law or the people- and act accordingly. The Church isn't going to let homosexuals adopt and isn't going to break the law, and quite rightly on both counts. As it stands, the Church is offering the equality the law demands. Isn't that enough for you?
    No. The Church should drop its obsession with homosexuality, think of the children first, and simply carry on doing the work they are doiong and consider homsexuals just like they consider everyone else.

    That's what is good for me and and should be for eveyrone. Time to put an end to homophobia and bigotry masquerading as religious beliefs once and for all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    isn't shellfish from Leviticus? If so its irrelevant to Catholicism as Leviticus is about rules that Jews should follow rather than Catholics. The case against homosexuality in Christian thought comes as much from the New Testament (ie the teachings of Jesus upon which Christianity is based) and is based on marriage being between one man and one woman.

    Catholicsm holds that celibacy is the best state, but that if you cannot contain your passions you should marry rather than have sex outside marriage.

    Whether you agree or not that is the doctine of the Catholic Church and the lobster argument is a red herring.

    That said I'm not defending Catholic teachings - I'm a Northern Irish Prod and think catholicism has it wrong on so many levels.

    What I am defending is people's right for the state not to interfere in their private beliefs - especially given that there is nothing to stop gay couples adopting through a non-religous agency.
    Oh if you think the shellfish example doesn't qualify because it's confined to the OT, that's fine. I give you 'the rich'.

    The rich are frown upon throughout the entire Bible, both in the OT and NT with JHC himself having a pop or two at them. But does the Catholic Church refuse adoption to these unchristian greedy people who go against the very core of christian beliefs? The hell it does.

    But in any case it does not matter much because the Catholic does follow the OT and sees it as the word of God. Isn't the Vatican's disgusting opposition to contraception based on a passage in the OT about some fella having one off the wrist and thus wasting his seed on the ground?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    And Aladdin's being bigoted with his constant attacks on the Catholic Church. Life's a bag of shit, ain't it? And yes, homosexual sex is a choice (according to the Church, anyway). It isn't the desire that's the sin, its the act.

    Why on earth would a gay couple be looking to adopt from a Catholic agency, though? Apart from for political reasons?

    I don't think the Church's teaching is right with regards to homosexuality, but I think it should be their choice. But if the law won't accomodate their religious choice they should be free to decide to not do the work.
    So if a man genuinely beliefs blacks are subhuman and do not deserve to mingle with whites and enter his pub/shop/restaurant/hotel, do you support his right to ban black people from his premises and condemn the laws that prevent him from doing so?

    I certainly see no difference between the two cases.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On the rich its a bit more complex than you make out. Wealth is not a barrier to heaven, but neither is it a pass. Some who is wealthy and uses it well (charitable works, emploment etc) is likely to get into heaven, whereas those who are selfish and don't follow God's will (and put the pursuit of mammon above the pursuit of their soul) won't.

    But again I'm not arguing from the sake of scripture (though it makes me laugh when people who barely know one end of the bible from the other try to proove the Catholic Church's beliefs wrong on the basis of a few half remembered comments).

    Even if every bit of the Catholic scripture is wrong and hypocritical the fact remains they have a belief and the state has no right to overule that belief when there are other alternatives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On the rich its a bit more complex than you make out. Wealth is not a barrier to heaven, but neither is it a pass. Some who is wealthy and uses it well (charitable works, emploment etc) is likely to get into heaven, whereas those who are selfish and don't follow God's will (and put the pursuit of mammon above the pursuit of their soul) won't.

    But again I'm not arguing from the sake of scripture (though it makes me laugh when people who barely know one end of the bible from the other try to proove the Catholic Church's beliefs wrong on the basis of a few half remembered comments).
    Camel. Eye. Needle. Seems pretty fucking clear to me. Remind me again what was Jesus' response to the rich man who asked him what he needed to do in order to get into heaven?

    Oh and it's very arrogant to assume that just because someone has come to different conclusions than you, that they are somehow ignorant of the bible, or Catholic teachings.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    isn't shellfish from Leviticus? If so its irrelevant to Catholicism as Leviticus is about rules that Jews should follow rather than Catholics. The case against homosexuality in Christian thought comes as much from the New Testament (ie the teachings of Jesus upon which Christianity is based) and is based on marriage being between one man and one woman.


    Just to point out the obvious - the only new testament books that make a direct reference to homosexuality are - Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1 - which are all written by Paul or those after him (in the case of Timothy).

    Direct references to comments by Jesus are much more subjective and include one passage of Jesus healing the supposed sexual slave of a centurion without comment.

    And as the rich ;) -

    jesus05_18.gif
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_TalentsS

    Seems about investment to me.

    I think the Centurion servant I've never heard any suggestion of lovers and a more likely is that he was a servant (probably the Roman equivalent of an officer's batman)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seems about investment to me.

    The article indicates that this isn't about money :- "The parable is apparently the origin of the use of the word "talent" to use a skill or ability"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    So if a man genuinely beliefs blacks are subhuman and do not deserve to mingle with whites and enter his pub/shop/restaurant/hotel, do you support his right to ban black people from his premises and condemn the laws that prevent him from doing so?

    I certainly see no difference between the two cases.

    I feel the same as you ....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Er, but with the wealthier servant being rewarded. You think if Jesus was so against the rich he might have gone for a different parable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As to the servant story

    Matthew 8:5-13:
    These verses describe how a Roman centurion asked Jesus to cure his "pais" who lay paralyzed and in great agony. The centurion stated that all Jesus had to do was to say the right words to effect the cure. Jesus praised the centurion for his faith. If the boy had been the centurion's son, then the author probably would have used the Greek word "uios" (son). If the writer wanted to imply that they boy was a slave or indentured servant, then he probably would have used the word "duolos" (slave). But he did not. He used the Greek word pais which, in this situation, contains the suggestion of a young male kept for sexual purposes by his adult owner. The English word "pederasty" comes partly from this word. Various translations of the Christian Scriptures have suppressed the possible sexual component of the term and translated the word simply as a "servant boy", "serving boy", "young servant," "my son," and "my boy." A present-day relationship of this type would be considered child sexual abuse, a serious crime. However, such arrangements were common in the Roman Empire at the time, and were tolerated by society, as was slavery itself.

    Like I said, subjective
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Er, but with the wealthier servant being rewarded. You think if Jesus was so against the rich he might have gone for a different parable.

    And if homosexuals were such a danger to society and raising children, you'd have thought he'd have mentioned that too ... which goes to show that much of the bible is down to interpretation by bigots.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We're going around in circles here.

    The Catholic Church is entitled to its opinion that homosexual sex is a sin. The Church is entitled to choose adoptive parents according to its own criteria. The Church is entitled to remind Government that it won't be beaten into acting against its principles, and that the children it cares for will suffer from this foolish law. You are entitled to whinge about the Church.

    Personally I think the stance on gays is wrong, but the stance on gay adoption is right. I think gays should be denied access to IVF, and should only be allowed to adopt if no straight couples are available and suitable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How many gay couples would actually want to go to a Catholic adoption agency though?

    The agency is about bringing the child up in a Catholic ethos and having a straight couple is a part of this. It's not there for the sole purpose of discriminating against homosexuals. It all boils down to the "freedom from" and "freedom to" argument.

    Aladin, how many times do you need to be told that Catholics believe in the Bible and also their own doctrine/dogma? Their beliefs against homosexuality are not just two or three lines from the OT.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    These verses describe how a Roman centurion asked Jesus to cure his "pais" who lay paralyzed and in great agony. The centurion stated that all Jesus had to do was to say the right words to effect the cure. Jesus praised the centurion for his faith. If the boy had been the centurion's son, then the author probably would have used the Greek word "uios" (son). If the writer wanted to imply that they boy was a slave or indentured servant, then he probably would have used the word "duolos" (slave). But he did not. He used the Greek word pais which, in this situation, contains the suggestion of a young male kept for sexual purposes by his adult owner. The English word "pederasty" comes partly from this word. Various translations of the Christian Scriptures have suppressed the possible sexual component of the term and translated the word simply as a "servant boy", "serving boy", "young servant," "my son," and "my boy." A present-day relationship of this type would be considered child sexual abuse, a serious crime. However, such arrangements were common in the Roman Empire at the time, and were tolerated by society, as was slavery itself

    At the risk of going into a etymological debate

    Pais actually means
    a child, boy or girl
    infants, children
    servant, slave
    an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister
    http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3816

    It is the addition of eran which provides pederast.


    The Greek word for that love was paiderastia (hence pederasty), derived from pais, boy, and eran, to love, meaning emotional and sensual affection for a pais. A common synonym for beloved boys in Greek writings is ta paidika, ’the boyish.’ The youths who attracted men’s attentions ranged in age from adolescence to early manhood, as can be seen from the images that have come down to us on Greek pottery and sculpture. Relationships with overly young boys were frowned upon then as they are now (though some Greek beloved youths would have fallen below the age of consent in many modern countries), one mark of a beloved ripe for a man’s attentions being the ability to “think for himself

    http://www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/Greece/greece.htm

    Its worth noting that 'Pais' occurs twenty four times in the New Testament

    http://www.holybible.com/resources/Trinitarian/article_469_12.htm

    It's probably worth noting that 'love' is frequently mentioned by WW1 officers about their feelings for their men and writers like Robert Fussel used this to suggest that many WW1 subalterns were repressed homosexuals - it is more likely that they meant an intense bond of fellowship and emotional feelings for their men, which was heightened by being far away from home in a dangerous environment (something which would equally apply to a Roman Centurion' so even the translation of the entimos as very dear to him' or 'highly regarded' may not be meant in a sexual way.

    That said its not my argument what Jesus said or didn't say and whether catholic dogma is right. Its that the state shouldn't overule people's religous views if there is an alternative...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    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.

    The churched used to discriminate against blacks too, but seeing as most (or at least a high proportion) of Christians are now African, there is no longer an issue.
    Kermit wrote:
    I think gays should be denied access to IVF, and should only be allowed to adopt if no straight couples are available and suitable.

    How come? Does this mean that the most loving and perfect gay or lesbian couple is a worst candidate than say a rocky heterosexual couple?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    The churched used to discriminate against blacks too, but seeing as most (or at least a high proportion) of Christians are now African, there is no longer an issue.

    Not even, most Christains are from Europe and South America.

    Though Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Africa.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    How come? Does this mean that the most loving and perfect gay or lesbian couple is a worst candidate than say a rocky heterosexual couple?

    A rocky straight couple isn't suitable, really. Nor is an abusive couple, or a couple who rape their child, etc etc. None of which, by the way, are exclusively straight traits.

    If there is a suitable straight couple they should always take priority over the gay couple. A gay couple should only be allowed to adopt if nobody else is there- they should always be at the back of the queue. I would suggest an outright ban on gays adopting, but there are more children in care than prospective adoptors and a child will be better in a loving gay home than in a care home.

    Gays cannot naturally conceive, and I think gay parenting is not natural in any way, shape or form. That's why gays should be denied access to IVF- there is no benefit to allowing them access to IVF as the child isn't in care, obviously. A turkey baster is not the same as a father.

    As for the pointless quoting from the Old Testament, it really is tedious.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Gays cannot naturally conceive, and I think gay parenting is not natural in any way, shape or form. That's why gays should be denied access to IVF- there is no benefit to allowing them access to IVF as the child isn't in care, obviously. A turkey baster is not the same as a father.

    Well actually in my opinion, the most convicing scientific theory surrounding gay men, is that assisting with parenting is precisely the reason for their existance (supported by such studies that show that the siblings of gay men on average have more children, and that the more older siblings a man has, the more likely they are to be gay). But either way, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that gay couples are any better or worse than straight couples at raising children, because not enough studies have been done into it. Mainly because the practice of gay couples as parents isn't nearly widespread enough to give any genuinely accurate data.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I think gay parenting is not natural in any way, shape or form.


    You base this opinion on...what?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, nature.

    Unless you care to elaborate how two men can mother a child?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You seem to labouring under the misapprehension that the nuclear family is "natural".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Natural in the sense that it's rather difficult to 2 gay men or 2 gay women to have a child of their own....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No shit, Sherlock.

    That's not what I was commenting on. Parenting is not the same as conceiving or giving birth.
Sign In or Register to comment.