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.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I certainly see no difference between the two cases.
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.
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.
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 -
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)
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"
I feel the same as you ....
Like I said, subjective
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.
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.
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.
At the risk of going into a etymological debate
Pais actually means
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3816
It is the addition of eran which provides pederast.
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...
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.
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?
Not even, most Christains are from Europe and South America.
Though Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Africa.
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.
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.
You base this opinion on...what?
Unless you care to elaborate how two men can mother a child?
That's not what I was commenting on. Parenting is not the same as conceiving or giving birth.