Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

The Catholic Church blackmails the government on gay rights

1567810

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Given the lack of evidence (not many gays adopt) its not really that fair a comparison. Especially as I couldvery easily, and very unfairly, point to the number of Civil Partnerships that have already failed.
    Exactly, there is a lack of evidence, and therefore, a lack of evidence that gay people should be treated any differently to straight people. Surely the default position is to always treat people equally, unless there is evidence to suggest that the case should be otherwise?
    Kermit wrote: »
    Anyway, I said four pages ago that I didn't want to get into the merits of gay adoption, because the argument is tedious and you're not going to convince me I'm wrong and I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong.
    If you're already admitting that no-one is going to convince you that you're wrong, then you're already admitting that you are not at all open to any evidence that is presented before you, or any logical arguments that might come with it. If this is the case, you're admitting that your position has no credibility whatsoever in rational debate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Same thing as what? You stated that lesbians can't sire a child. You're wrong. Get over it.
    Except he's not is he? Lesbians have the equipment to get pregnant, but they can't be sire, there's some bloke somewhere who's the sire.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Gays cannot conceive, ergo gays cannot be parents. It's been proven time and time and time again that the best way to raise children is in stable family with a mother and a father- not a single mother, not a single father, and not two fathers. I reckon single parents are better than gay parents. It ain't rocket science. Therefore gays should be right at the back of the queue.
    Why? Why should the fact that gay couples can't conceive stop them from being parents. Children can have male role models without having a father. No disrespect but I don't buy that argument at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Except he's not is he? Lesbians have the equipment to get pregnant, but they can't be sire, there's some bloke somewhere who's the sire.

    What? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you're already admitting that no-one is going to convince you that you're wrong, then you're already admitting that you are not at all open to any evidence that is presented before you, or any logical arguments that might come with it. If this is the case, you're admitting that your position has no credibility whatsoever in rational debate.

    What on earth are you drivelling on about?

    I've heard the same arguments for years and I don't agree with them. So what more is there to say?

    I'm just amazed that nobody's tried to claim its because I hate gays or something, that usually happens too.

    Blagsybabes, a woman cannot sire a child, therefore a couple with two women in it cannot sire children. Go and look it up in a dictionary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    What? :confused:
    Of a lesbian couple, any child born to that couple is only biologically half theirs. Biologically the mother's. You cannot combine the DNA of two women to make a baby, ie, lesbian's cannot sire a child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    What on earth are you drivelling on about?

    I've heard the same arguments for years and I don't agree with them. So what more is there to say?

    Someone presents some (new) evidence that is contrary to what you've been arguing, and the first thing you say is "oh there's no point, you're not going to change my mind." That just proves that you haven't and won't consider any evidence, and you're just going by your own predjudices. Frankly you're talking bullshit that you haven't backed up with any evidence.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Yes, he came from a family so anti-Nazi his Dad was sacked from the police under Hitler and was lucky to avoid a concentration camp. And the Hitler Youth wasn't like the Boy Scouts where you volunteer to go along. He was a conscript.

    And? I don't think most of his indoctrination is gone. Look at how he has been acting, things he has been doing and saying. He's sofar managed to piss off alot of Muslims, helping fuck up John Pauls work towards making the Vatican better.

    He's making it go backwards to a hateful bunch of exlusionists. How rather similar to a certain other organisation he used to belong to.

    Indoctrination like the HJ is hard to get rid of. It seems here, despite his Anti-Nazi parents (indeed, parents were often hated by HJ members if they had an anti-party stance, and it wa the focus of many HJ activies) he came out still quite well indoctrinated by the HJ.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Same thing as what? You stated that lesbians can't sire a child. You're wrong. Get over it.

    Admittedly biology's not my strong point, but given that sire means

    1. A father.
    2. The male parent of an animal, especially a domesticated mammal such as a horse.
    3. Archaic A male ancestor; a forefather.
    4. Archaic A gentleman of rank.
    5. Archaic Used as a form of address for a superior, especially a king

    I'm kinda of interested how a woman can sire anything... A diagram would help.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Without meaning to point out the obvious - a gay is of course capable of being a father without any form of medical intervention. Of course two gay men aren't capable of having a child together - but then again most of the straight couples looking to adopt are incapable of having a child together - hence the need for adoption.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    And? I don't think most of his indoctrination is gone. Look at how he has been acting, things he has been doing and saying. He's sofar managed to piss off alot of Muslims, helping fuck up John Pauls work towards making the Vatican better.

    He's making it go backwards to a hateful bunch of exlusionists. How rather similar to a certain other organisation he used to belong to.

    Indoctrination like the HJ is hard to get rid of. It seems here, despite his Anti-Nazi parents (indeed, parents were often hated by HJ members if they had an anti-party stance, and it wa the focus of many HJ activies) he came out still quite well indoctrinated by the HJ.

    What are you wittering about? He was actually only in the Hitler Youth for a short amount of time but was one of the few allowed out because he was in a seminary. It also ignores the fact that the allies managed to get rid of indoctrination quite well in millions of other Germans...

    His policies have no relationship to Nazism whatsoever and he has continued the dialogue with the Jews and Catholics belief in the sanctity of life in regard to the disabled (a cousin with Downs was murdered under the Nazi's eugenics programme).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Incidentally this debate is making all sorts to come out of the woodwork.

    That nice tolerant "charity" the Christian Institute has come up with the following card:

    0,,388094,00.jpg

    It warms your heart doesn't it?
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Kermit wrote: »
    What on earth are you drivelling on about?

    I've heard the same arguments for years and I don't agree with them. So what more is there to say?
    Quite simply, if you're predecided that you'll never change your mind on a subject, you are useless to any discussion on that subject and should never take part in one. No matter what that is.
    For the record, I agree with you on this (the main idea anyway), but unlike you I'm not so narrow-minded that I'll effectively say "I'm sure I could never be wrong". Given the right arguments, I could be convinced otherwise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I've heard the same arguments for years and I don't agree with them. So what more is there to say?

    I'm just amazed that nobody's tried to claim its because I hate gays or something, that usually happens too.

    If your wife and you had an untimely end and your wife has, for instance, a gay brother, would you still want your children to go to a straight, unknown (couple or single person) rather than your wife's brother?

    By the way, I don't believe that you hate gays at all. I am just confused as to why you think gay couples would be bad parents. Yes, you have stated that in your opinion, gay parenting is not an ideal - but you haven't said why they would otherwise be bad parents ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Breaking news: Downing St. has confirmed there will be no exception in the law for Catholic Church adopting agencies.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6311097.stm


    A rare victory for tolerance and common sense! :)

    Now let's hope the Catholic Church think things carefully and decides to abandon its two 2,000 year-old persecution of homosexuals once and for all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Breaking news: Downing St. has confirmed there will be no exception in the law for Catholic Church adopting agencies.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6311097.stm


    A rare victory for tolerance and common sense! :)

    Now let's hope the Catholic Church think things carefully and decides to abandon its two 2,000 year-old persecution of homosexuals once and for all.

    Excellent news. I'm glad the government have had the courage of their their convictions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    A rare victory for tolerance and common sense! :)

    Unless you feel toelreance should extend to religous freedom - obviously in some people's minds it doesn't...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    At which point has anyone stopped the Catholic Church, Catholic faithful or indeed anyone else from any denomination from practising their religion or speaking their mind about their beliefs? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    At which point has anyone stopped the Catholic Church, Catholic faithful or indeed anyone else from any denomination from practising their religion or speaking their mind about their beliefs? :confused:

    You just posted it - 21 months from now is the point it stops.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Of a lesbian couple, any child born to that couple is only biologically half theirs. Biologically the mother's. You cannot combine the DNA of two women to make a baby, ie, lesbian's cannot sire a child.


    So what?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Admittedly biology's not my strong point, but given that sire means




    I'm kinda of interested how a woman can sire anything... A diagram would help.

    I didn't know that it specifically meant male. Given that it does, what was Kermit on about? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You just posted it - 21 months from now is the point it stops.

    Surely in a secular democracy governmental law should always be the law of the land?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely in a secular democracy governmental law should always be the law of the land?

    Exactly. Argue that the law is bullshit all you want. But don't try and argue that certain people should get exemption from it because of "religious beliefs" because what's to stop anyone getting out of a law by claiming that it's against their religious beliefs?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You just posted it - 21 months from now is the point it stops.
    No, it doesn't. The Catholic Church, together with every other religion in the land, will continue to be free to practice their beliefs, worship their God, pray, have services and speak in public about them. That is what religious freedom means. When somebody illegalises the Catholic Church, closes down churches and bans people from expressing a belief we can start talking about attacking religious freedom.

    In the meantime it is wrong and misleading to suggest that if somebody is not allowed to be prejudiced and discriminate against a certain group regarding the adoption of children, his religious freedom is being attacked. Child adoption issues have absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom or lack thereof. They are two entirely different issues.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    In the meantime it is wrong and misleading to suggest that if somebody is not allowed to be prejudiced and discriminate against a certain group regarding the adoption of children, his religious freedom is being attacked.

    Exactly. Next they'll be complaining about someone being denied the right to "practice their religion" by blowing up any non-believers, because some people hold that religious belief too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely in a secular democracy governmental law should always be the law of the land?

    Its not beyond the wit of man to put a clause into law which gives an exemption for religous bodies. Laws have lots of exemptions for religous reasons (and even some for non-religous moral reasons).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its not beyond the wit of man to put a clause into law which gives an exemption for religous bodies. Laws have lots of exemptions for religous reasons (and even some for non-religous moral reasons).

    Fair enough, but when it's between human rights and religious rights one must take precedent, and in this case I believe it's been the right one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is a difference between (religious) freedom and (gay) rights

    IE I think that you are free to do something with a freedom. Yet if you have rights, you have rights.

    Victory for common sense I say
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I was waiting for someone to crack open that old chestnut.

    1. Infertile couples can only not conceive naturally because their bodies are, for want of a better phrase, defective. A gay man can never mother a child; a lesbian can never sire a child. It is an important consideration.

    2. Many disabled people aren't suitable to be adoptive parents. I don't think anyone would be arguing if I was saying that Down's adults wouldn't be the ideal choice to be parents, would they.

    I wouldn't have an outright ban simply because there are more children than prospective adopters, but gays should be at the back of the queue.
    There is no difference between a bisexual/homosexual couple than a heterosexual one other than their sexual preference. So they choose to love a member of the same sex, that is all. I don't see how it will affect their ability to be nurturing parents.

    It's not like the child will grow screwed up is it? Single parents can raise children, I know people who have disabilities raise children (by disability, I didn't mean Downs... But if one of the couple were in a wheelchair or something).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    A rare victory for tolerance and common sense!

    Hardly. No tolerance of relgious belief and no common sense in making laws which dictate how people behave. Change a culture, not a law.
    Now let's hope the Catholic Church think things carefully and decides to abandon its two 2,000 year-old persecution of homosexuals once and for all.

    TBH I think that it would be nice for them to take a note of female equality at some point.
Sign In or Register to comment.