Home Politics & Debate

The Catholic Church blackmails the government on gay rights

15678911»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hardly. No tolerance of relgious belief and no common sense in making laws which dictate how people behave. Change a culture, not a law.
    Again, I feel some people are throwing the rather grave-sounding accusation of attacking religious beliefs or restricting freedom of religion around without much base.

    The definition of attacking the right to religious freedom must relate to such acts as banning people from belonging to a faith, worshipping that faith and congregating to that effect, and speaking publicly about that faith.

    Child adoption has nothing to do with any religion. Just like running a hotel or a bar doesn't either. Religious people need to understand that they must treat everyone equally during every day situations that have nothing to do with religion and with their faith. Or at least stop crying 'religious discrimination!' whenever they are challenged.

    TBH I think that it would be nice for them to take a note of female equality at some point.
    Agreed. That'd be nice too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Child adoption has nothing to do with any religion.

    Sadly it does because the state cannot cope on it's own.
    Religious people need to understand that they must treat everyone equally during every day situations that have nothing to do with religion and with their faith.

    This is why you get so worked up Aladdin, you just cannot understand how they think. Everything in life is connected to their religion. There isn't a single event or moment in their life which doesn't have some bearing on their soul.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Again, I feel some people are throwing the rather grave-sounding accusation of attacking religious beliefs or restricting freedom of religion around without much base.

    how much base do you need? people have being telling you for 20 pages and you've wandered round with hands over your ears, eyes and mouth muttering a manta about 'see no evil'
    The definition of attacking the right to religious freedom must relate to such acts as banning people from belonging to a faith, worshipping that faith and congregating to that effect, and speaking publicly about that faith.

    No it doesn't. That's an extreme version, but then no-ones arguing that we're in Saudi style territory yet.
    Child adoption has nothing to do with any religion. Just like running a hotel or a bar doesn't either. Religious people need to understand that they must treat everyone equally during every day situations that have nothing to do with religion and with their faith. Or at least stop crying 'religious discrimination!' whenever they are challenged.

    You think it has - you started the post (your second on basically the same subject). But religion has to do with morals and by making them doing something which is against their religous/moral code the state is effectively saying 'fuck your good work or your religous sensitivities we're going to run roughshod over your feelings'

    It seems simple to me - the state allows homosexuals to adopt and local authorities as a state body have to allow that if its in the best interest of the child.

    If on the other hand you have religous objections the state should respect that, especially given the small numbers of children actually adopted through Catholic charities (which I predict will drop from 4% to 0%)

    And no matter how much you hate the Catholic church you either stand for toleration or you don't. Its a contradiction in terms to only tolerate things you agree with.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sadly it does because the state cannot cope on it's own.



    This is why you get so worked up Aladdin, you just cannot understand how they think. Everything in life is connected to their religion. There isn't a single event or moment in their life which doesn't have some bearing on their soul.

    Can they burn gays at the stake?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unless you feel toelreance should extend to religous freedom - obviously in some people's minds it doesn't...

    Why should religion be above the law?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sadly it does because the state cannot cope on it's own.
    If the want to lend a hand that's great. But that doesn't mean they should discriminate any more than a Coca-cola sponsored adoption agency should discriminate against those who drink Pepsi.


    This is why you get so worked up Aladdin, you just cannot understand how they think. Everything in life is connected to their religion. There isn't a single event or moment in their life which doesn't have some bearing on their soul.
    But they're not even acting according to their religion are they? If they were there is a very good argument for saying that they wouldn't be in the adopting business at all, since according to them every single last human being is a sinner. And I'm sorry to bring this up again, but the matter remains that they are ignoring 99.99% of all specific cases of sin mentioned in the Bible while blanking out one particular group. Which proves beyond doubt that they are not acting out of fervently-held religious beliefs but bigotry and prejudice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Why should religion be above the law?

    Indeed, so where's your thread about the Crash Helmet legislation Blagsta?
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    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.
    In my case, it's not the parents' sexual orientation that bothers me, at least not directly. Nor do I think they'd be bad parents any more than straight people could. What bothers me is that instead of a male parent and a female parent there are two of the same sex.
    Of course sometimes one can die and then there'd be a single parent, and (who knows?) maybe later that single parent will realise they're gay and remarry someone of the same sex. But the kid came in the family when as far as everyone knew (s)he'd have parents of a different sex. This is different than bringing a child in a family where there's already only one parent or two of the same sex.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed, so where's your thread about the Crash Helmet legislation Blagsta?

    Start one if you like.

    Not quite the same though is it, as it only affects the person not wearing a crash helmet.

    However, yes, I agree, religions should not get special dispensation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how much base do you need? people have being telling you for 20 pages and you've wandered round with hands over your ears, eyes and mouth muttering a manta about 'see no evil'
    I suggest you look up or at least try to work out what 'religious freedom' or 'right of religious expression' actually mean... Because you're missing the point by miles.

    You think it has - you started the post (your second on basically the same subject). But religion has to do with morals and by making them doing something which is against their religous/moral code the state is effectively saying 'fuck your good work or your religous sensitivities we're going to run roughshod over your feelings'
    If only their discrimination against gays had anything to do with their beliefs.

    Or to put it another way, if only they were to hold the same high principles against just about everybody else who is a sinner...

    It seems simple to me - the state allows homosexuals to adopt and local authorities as a state body have to allow that if its in the best interest of the child.

    If on the other hand you have religous objections the state should respect that, especially given the small numbers of children actually adopted through Catholic charities (which I predict will drop from 4% to 0%)

    And no matter how much you hate the Catholic church you either stand for toleration or you don't. Its a contradiction in terms to only tolerate things you agree with.
    Not quite. The only thing I'm not tolerating in the first place is intolerance itself.

    Time to stop bigotry and prejudice. There is no excuse for it. Supposed religious beliefs are no more acceptable than racial supremacy beliefs.

    I really can't fucking believe some people here appear to be saying religious organisations should be above the fucking law.

    Unbefuckinglievable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    If the want to lend a hand that's great.

    Certainly is. Kind of spitting in their face when you then pass laws which outlaw their beliefs though.
    But they're not even acting according to their religion are they?

    Actually they are. You just cannot get your head around their way of thinking.
    And I'm sorry to bring this up again, but the matter remains that they are ignoring 99.99% of all specific cases of sin mentioned in the Bible while blanking out one particular group.

    So what? You preach tolerance and argue against predjudice and then show none whilst posting a thread singling out one religion when all three of the UK's major religion's hold the same views on this topic.
    Which proves beyond doubt that they are not acting out of fervently-held religious beliefs but bigotry and prejudice.

    Do I need to flip this one on it's head too?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Not quite. The only thing I'm not tolerating in the first place is intolerance itself.

    Sorry but it's more than that. You don't tolerate the religious belief not just the action.
    I really can't fucking believe some people here appear to be saying religious organisations should be above the fucking law.

    Unbefuckinglievable.

    Good, another poster who will start a thread about crash helmet legislation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Certainly is. Kind of spitting in their face when you then pass laws which outlaw their beliefs though.
    No. No beliefs have been outlawed. There is nowhere in the Bible where it states homosexuals are not to be allowed to adopt children.


    Actually they are. You just cannot get your head around their way of thinking.
    Oh yes I can. So well in fact... :D


    So what? You preach tolerance and argue against predjudice and then show none whilst posting a thread singling out one religion when all three of the UK's major religion's hold the same views on this topic.
    As I said before I condemned at the time the Anglican Church for showing solidarity. But in case it has escaped your attention the issue and the news are still around the Catholic Church. I hope you're not blaming me for commenting on the news agenda in Britain.


    Do I need to flip this one on it's head too?
    By all means have a crack, because nobody has managed to do so yet.

    Nobody has been able to successfully remonstrate the fact that the Church is ignoring most sinners condemned in their Holy Book while singleing out one particular group.

    And there is no way around that. Sorry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry but it's more than that. You don't tolerate the religious belief not just the action.
    Not true. If the Catholic Church wants to think gays are an abomination I'm not going to argue for it to be outlawed. I draw the line at discriminatory action being taken based on that belief.


    Good, another poster who will start a thread about crash helmet legislation.
    :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Why should religion be above the law?

    It isn't is it? Can you show where I advocate they should break it. I think the law happens to be wrong in this case - that's the difference
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I suggest you look up or at least try to work out what 'religious freedom' or 'right of religious expression' actually mean... Because you're missing the point by miles.

    I'm not missing any point. I think tolerance is much wider than the state allowing you to go to church.
    If only their discrimination against gays had anything to do with their beliefs.

    Or to put it another way, if only they were to hold the same high principles against just about everybody else who is a sinner...

    I'm not defending Catholicism. Fucking hell my grandpa would be quite rightly spinning in his grave.

    But the fact is it their belief
    Not quite. The only thing I'm not tolerating in the first place is intolerance itself.

    Time to stop bigotry and prejudice. There is no excuse for it. Supposed religious beliefs are no more acceptable than racial supremacy beliefs.

    I'm guessing you don't see the irony of either of those two paragraphs...
    I really can't fucking believe some people here appear to be saying religious organisations should be above the fucking law

    Show me where I say they should break the law.

    We still have a right to say a law is bad and ought to be changed. Though the way this country is going, that's probably soon for the chop.

    Unbefuckinglievable

    You said it...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    _40202351_hamza_pa203.jpg

    Brave Abu; he too felt the sting of a fascist government trying to curtail his religious freedoms.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    I'm not defending Catholicism. Fucking hell my grandpa would be quite rightly spinning in his grave.

    But the fact is it their belief
    Would you (and this is for MoK as well) be defending the right of a man who happens to be a white supremacist in charge of an adoption agency to discriminate against black couples as well? If he really believed blacks were subhuman and incapable of raising a child?

    And more to the point, would you call me or anyone else intolerant for suggesting white supremacists shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people of other races?

    If the answer is no, why are you suggesting I am intolerant for suggesting a religious organisation shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals?


    Show me where I say they should break the law.

    We still have a right to say a law is bad and ought to be changed. Though the way this country is going, that's probably soon for the chop.
    You are saying an execption should be made so the Catholic Church is above this law.

    Which is horrendous enough.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    _40202351_hamza_pa203.jpg

    Brave Abu; he too felt the sting of a fascist government trying to curtail his religious freedoms.
    Indeed.

    And how intolerant of everyone to demand he be jailed for giving a piece of his mind about various affairs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Indeed.

    And how intolerant of everyone to demand he be jailed for giving a piece of his mind about various affairs.

    I'm fairly sure he has about the same case for being above the law as the Catholic Church does. He's not saying you have to murder the western infidels, just that it's his belief you should.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Would you (and this is for MoK as well) be defending the right of a man who happens to be a white supremacist in charge of an adoption agency to discriminate against black couples as well? If he really believed blacks were subhuman and incapable of raising a child?

    And more to the point, would you call me or anyone else intolerant for suggesting white supremacists shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people of other races?

    If the answer is no, why are you suggesting I am intolerant for suggesting a religious organisation shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals?

    I've told you I judge arguments on their individual merits.
    You are saying an execption should be made so the Catholic Church is above this law.

    I'm not saying that anyone should be above the law. I am saying the law is wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm fairly sure he has about the same case for being above the law as the Catholic Church does. He's not saying you have to murder the western infidels, just that it's his belief you should.

    The moment the Catholic church does the same I'll be denouncing them as well (and have done on Northern Ireland).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's a difference between saying someone should be above the law, and saying that the law is poor. I happen to agree with the motives of the law, as anyone should, but I think it has been executed very badly. I don't think the Church should get dispensation from the law, I don't think the law should be there. Certainly where it collides so brutally with the religious freedoms of others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    If he really believed blacks were subhuman and incapable of raising a child?

    Hardly comparable.
    why are you suggesting I am intolerant for suggesting a religious organisation shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals?

    Partly because you single out just one religion, as usual. Partly because the Church are saying the either they can carry on as before or they won't run agencies because they will not fit with a law which goes against their religious principles.

    Would you supprt a law which enforced, for example, immunisation of children knowing that current immunisation contain pork-related productss and thus go against both Muslim and Jewish relgious beliefs. After all, it's in a childs interests.

    What about outlawing male circumcision where there is no medical reason, after all it's painful for the child...

    Point is that we make exclusions, or don't make laws, because we appreciate that religous belief if fundamental to some people - it's goes to their very being. Just because you don't agree wit htheir religion is no exucse to ride roughshod over their beliefs.

    White/black power is not comparable.
    You are saying an execption should be made so the Catholic Church is above this law.

    No, I'm saying that the law shouldn't be in place, but if it is the exceptions should be included. Thus it would be part of the law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hardly comparable.
    Is it really? Or just uncomfortable to answer?


    Partly because you single out just one religion, as usual.
    :banghead: x 94,000

    Who is threatening to close down its agencies? The Moonies? The Quakers? The Buddhists?
    Partly because the Church are saying the either they can carry on as before or they won't run agencies because they will not fit with a law which goes against their religious principles.
    But it doesn't go against their religious principles. They're claming religious beliefs to hide/justify their homophobia. Where exactly does it say in the Bible homosexuals cannot adopt children?
    Would you supprt a law which enforced, for example, immunisation of children knowing that current immunisation contain pork-related productss and thus go against both Muslim and Jewish relgious beliefs. After all, it's in a childs interests.
    Without a fucking doubt.
    What about outlawing male circumcision where there is no medical reason, after all it's painful for the child...
    If there is no medical reason for it, yes I would.
    Point is that we make exclusions, or don't make laws, because we appreciate that religous belief if fundamental to some people - it's goes to their very being. Just because you don't agree wit htheir religion is no exucse to ride roughshod over their beliefs.
    But they're not acting because of their religious beliefs are they?

    It has nothing to do with their religious beliefs. We are all sinners according to Christianity. And at the same time we are all children of God.

    Homosexuals are being SINGLED OUT and that is because of prejudice and bigotry, not because of religious beliefs.
    No, I'm saying that the law shouldn't be in place, but if it is the exceptions should be included. Thus it would be part of the law.
    Yes I guess you would. I on the other hand don't believe granting exceptions to prejudice and bigotry based on supposed religious beliefs any more than I would support granting exceptions to sexist men against women or white supremacists against non-whites.

    And I'm sorry, but the comparision with discrimination against blacks is very valid indeed, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. There is no difference whatosever between the two types of bigots. Why should anyone who claims a religious belief fuels their bigotry should be any more tolerated than somebody who simply genuinely beliefs a certain race or group should be discriminated against?

    Or indeed, why should we spit blood at the sight of Abu Hamza saying certain things and demanding he be jailed for them while defending the right of different religious leaders to indulge in their own bigotry?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote: »
    Mmm, I wouldn't say that homosexuals are evil, just that nature didn't intend for a child to be brought up by two men or woman.

    Oh wow! What a relief! So homosexuals aren't evil?

    Jung gives five very positive aspects of the homosexual male:

    ? This [homosexuality] gives him a great capacity for friendship, which often creates ties of astonishing tenderness between men, and may even rescue friendship between the sexes from its limbo of the impossible.

    ? He may have good taste and an aesthetic sense which are fostered by the presence of a feminine streak.

    ? Then, he may be supremely gifted as a teacher because of his almost feminine insight and tact.

    ? He is likely to have a feeling for history, and to be conservative in the best sense and cherish the values of the past.

    ? Often he is endowed with a wealth of religious feelings, which help him to bring the ecclesia spiritualis [the spiritual church] into reality, and a spiritual receptivity which makes him responsive to revelation.

    From my experience, the above is generally true ...
    J wrote: »
    Nature is a law, it's the same as the laws that people discover as scientists..

    Homosexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys and the great apes. Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.

    So what exactly IS your theory on the 'Law of Nature'?
    J wrote: »
    There are also hidden moral and social order laws that can be discovered as a philosopher.

    And so who is the 'in' animal philopspher around at the moment to comment on homosexuality amongst non-humans? Where are the animals getting their 'moral' and 'social order laws' from?
    J wrote: »
    What do we wish to achieve by bending these laws.
    I see it, people are tempted, I see it in thier eyes and thier sub-conscious lusts. I see it in myself, my weak will and turning away from wisdom.
    I mean, do what you want but the results wont be pretty. It's far from a fairy tale and closer to a nightmare or horror story. I'm red, so red. It's disgusting to me. I just hope the 999 of my name means I am the antichirist and that the end of the world wont be too much longer.

    ????
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Is it really? Or just uncomfortable to answer?

    No, not comparable.

    I don't think that you would like my answer.
    :banghead: x 94,000

    Who is threatening to close down its agencies? The Moonies? The Quakers? The Buddhists?

    :banghead: x 94,001

    Who says that they aren't fit to run agencies in the first place? Who says that they should abide by the law or get out of the business?
    Where exactly does it say in the Bible homosexuals cannot adopt children?

    You're like a broken record.

    It. Does. Not. Have. To.

    Homosexuality is an abomination.
    Church therefore deems practicing homsexuals unfit to be parents.
    Church does not place kids in such homes.
    Without a fucking doubt.

    If there is no medical reason for it, yes I would.

    Okay, so at which point have you shown any tolerance there for someone's beliefs?
    There is no difference whatosever between the two types of bigots. Why should anyone who claims a religious belief fuels their bigotry should be any more tolerated than somebody who simply genuinely beliefs a certain race or group should be discriminated against?

    There is a huge difference between relgious belief and any other. It's blind faith. That you cannot understand that type of belief is why I cannot explain to you why you are so massively wrong here.
    why should we spit blood at the sight of Abu Hamza saying certain things and demanding he be jailed for them while defending the right of different religious leaders to indulge in their own bigotry?

    Have I ever demanded he be jailed for what he has said? What about the BNP, I think you'll find I favour them being allowed to have the same freedoms as you and I use in condemning their views and I think you'll find that rather than legislate against them I would prefer to argue against them.

    Just as I am wit hthe Catholic Church.

    That is the difference between you and I on these major issue. We both agree that the view held are offensive. You want the views outlawed, I want them in the open where I can argue against them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, not comparable.

    I don't think that you would like my answer.
    I'm all ears.


    :banghead: x 94,001

    Who says that they aren't fit to run agencies in the first place? Who says that they should abide by the law or get out of the business?
    And I will say exactly the same of any other agency, Anglican, Muslim, Jewish, Moonie or non-religious, that says their beliefs prevent them from consider gays.

    Perhaps you should write to the national newspapers and TV stations and demand we talk about other religions. Much as I wish I could I am unable to set the news agenda you know? :rolleyes:


    You're like a broken record.

    It. Does. Not. Have. To.

    Homosexuality is an abomination.
    Church therefore deems practicing homsexuals unfit to be parents.
    Church does not place kids in such homes.
    At the risk of invoking another broken record remark, may I remind you about those who eat shellfish, also abominable in the eyes of the Good Book?

    Bottom line is, nobody has been able to explain how the Church is simply acting according to Christian beliefs if every other sinner is tolerated but gay aren't.

    So they cannot be acting according to their beliefs are they? Because if they were they would be excluding a few other types of wrongdoers specifically named and shamed in the Bible. Those who work on the Sabbah should be put to death, no less. Not even evil gays are to be slaughtered. But where is the Catholic Church's ban on those who work on the Sabbath.

    That is undeniable and final proof that the Church is picking up an specific target out of spite & prejudice rather than adhering to the commands and beliefs of the Bible.

    There is no way around that and you know it.


    Okay, so at which point have you shown any tolerance there for someone's beliefs?
    Well generally speaking I show tolerance for other people's beliefs up to the point when they start unfairly prejudicing against others.


    There is a huge difference between relgious belief and any other. It's blind faith. That you cannot understand that type of belief is why I cannot explain to you why you are so massively wrong here.
    Why should it deserve special exception? If someone was brought up to believe that blacks are subhuman and are not be allowed anywhere whites for everyone's good, and that person sincerely and in his opinion not maliciously believes that, why should it receive any less respect than someone who bases his beliefs and actions on religious faith? :confused:

    Think about it.


    Have I ever demanded he be jailed for what he has said? What about the BNP, I think you'll find I favour them being allowed to have the same freedoms as you and I use in condemning their views and I think you'll find that rather than legislate against them I would prefer to argue against them.

    Just as I am wit hthe Catholic Church.

    That is the difference between you and I on these major issue. We both agree that the view held are offensive. You want the views outlawed, I want them in the open where I can argue against them.
    No MoK I don't want their views outlawed. I want action based on those views to be outlawed. There is a fundamental difference between the two.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ever get the feeling we're going round in circles? ;)

    Time to walk away me thinks
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i don't think i have ever sided with the catholic church before but this time io will.
    last week i was in a gay6 bar in amsterdam and out iof about thirty people in this discussion a whole four of them agreed with the church!
    simply on the grounds that it isn't healthy for us all to be forced to think and act alike.
    someone used slavery as an example on the grounds that i might want to keep slaves.
    no comparrison.
    why is it so wrong to believe that same sex parents are a bad idea?
    why is it so wrong to have ideals?
    gay people can adopt elswhere and boycot the catholic church.
Sign In or Register to comment.