Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality
| Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422616] |
Wed, 17 March 2010 11:37  |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
Source
| Quote: |
The last Catholic adoption agency in the UK to refuse to serve gay couples has won its High Court appeal.
Leeds-based Catholic Care was appealing against a Charity Commission ruling which said it could not discriminate against gay would-be parents.
Today, the High Court allowed its appeal. Mr Justice Briggs ordered the Charity Commission to reconsider the case.
A Charity Commission spokeswoman said this afternoon she could not yet comment on whether the commission would appeal against the decision.
The charity had pleaded with the commission for an exemption from the law, saying it would close rather than place children with gay couples.
Catholic Care had wanted to take advantage of a clause in the 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations which allows charities to discriminate by amending their charitable objectives.
However it was barred from doing so by the Charity Commission.
All other Catholic adoption agencies have severed their ties with the church or closed down since the 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations came into power.
They were given a two-year window in which to comply with the law.
Earlier this month, bishops for the three areas the agency serves said that children would "suffer" if Catholic Care was forced to close.
The agencies have typically worked to find homes for the children with the most troubled histories.
In a statement, the Bishop of Leeds Arthur Roche said that children would be "seriously disadvantaged" if the court had not agreed with the charity.
He said: "Catholic Care has been providing specialist adoption services for over 100 years.
"We have helped hundreds of children through the recruitment, assessment, training and support for prospective adoptive parents as well as offering ongoing and post-adoption support to families that give such security and love for some of the most vulnerable children in our society.
"The judgment today will help in our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities."
|
If anybody has ever made a good moral argument against homosexuality at all, I've never heard it. But more to the point, I've also never heard a good argument as to why a gay couple would be thought of as riskier adoptive parents than a straight couple. Until that argument is made, I'm not sure why that kind of discrimination is considered just.
But if there is one organisation in the world who, above all others, ought not to have authority over the welfare of children, it is the Catholic church. It has an official policy of protecting child rapists from the law, set up by Joseph Ratzinger (before he became pope, but it's still there), and the threatened penalty for breaking it (i.e. for co-operating with a police investigation, for example) is the most horrific punishment of the lot: hell.
I'm going to say that again. It's worth saying twice; it's worth saying a hundred times a day until somebody fucking does something about it. The Catholic Church has an official policy of protecting child rapists from the law, and the penalty you're threatened with if you broke it is the worst punishment it can think of to threaten anybody with.
Sadly, this organisation does have an enormous amount of control over the welfare of children, doesn't it? I can sum this situation up in one word: emergency.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Wed, 17 March 2010 11:38] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422623 is a reply to message #422616] |
Wed, 17 March 2010 12:53  |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Yeah, this shit is beyond stupid. Why the fuck can't society stop clinging to retarded, illogical religious beliefs?
Fuck, you'd think if anything, the religious types would be MORE accepting...
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422629 is a reply to message #422625] |
Wed, 17 March 2010 14:05 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 14:30 |
While there is really no existing argument that can soundly argue why homosexuality is wrong, there is more grounds to want to argue against having a child adopted into a homosexual family.
That's not to say that it's necessarily wrong to do that either. What I'm getting at is that it is obvious that, regardless of the lack of logical reasoning, there are many people in the world who hold homosexuals in contempt. People will go to extremes to express their beliefs and fight to the ends of the earth for a cause they don't fully understand themselves.
Therefore, it is a likely scenario that if you allow a child to be adopted into a homosexual family, there is a higher chance of risk or harm for the child. It really doesn't matter how capable the would-be parents are.
Again, it's not wrong to be homosexual nor is it right to deny a homosexual couple to adopt a kid. But it is something that should be considered appropriately.
|
well, if this is the best argument against it... i.e. that there is a lot of anti-homosexual prejudice, then this has two implications.
firstly this seems to entail that we should also "consider appropriately" every other group who has suffered comparable prejudice. judaism springs to mind, as well as various christian denominations, as well as atheists.
secondly, why has there been two thousand years of homophobic feeling even in the civilised world? i'll tell you: two thousand years of christianity. christianity's iron grip on society, especially education, has flooded the western world with propaganda against homosexuality, even though it utterly fails when the subject is actually debated. so the problem is, again, the fact that christianity and catholicism has enormous control over children, specifically education. why is this the case in the supposedly civilised world? this is what needs to be changed.
| Quote: |
Children in the care of any catholic people are seriously in danger to be honest. I don't care if I'm stereotyping but with how many children get abused by catholic priests and such. Also with religious brainwashing etc...
|
There is no need to "stereotype" when we talk about sex offence against children by Catholic priests. And I request that you don't call it child "abuse". That's frankly a bit of a wishy-washy euphemism. Call it what it is: child rape. But I digress. No need to stereotype, because like I said, the Catholic Church has an official policy of protecting child rapists from the law, and threatens its employees with hell, the worst punishment it can think of, if they do something to break this policy, such as co-operate with a police investigation.
Need an illustration of how this policy works out? I give you Cardinal Bernard Law. He was the Arch-bishop of Boston, Massachussetts (forgive me if i'm spelling that wrong) for a couple of decades. It was conclusively proven that he was extensively involved with covering up sex offences carried out by priests/bishops under him, against thousands of children. Even after this all came out, he didn't resign and wasn't fired or even pressured to resign by the Pope. Eventually his resignation was demanded by virtually the entirety of the state, including many catholics. (ponder for yourself how many of these were genuinely outraged at these crimes, and how many simply decided it couldn't be covered up any more)
So he eventually did step down, and went to the Vatican, and was promoted, personally by the Pope. Given a whole list of new titles. I can't recite them and I wouldn't know what the hell most of them mean anyway, but one of his privileges was the fact that he was (i think he still is, actually) part of the council who elects the new pope when the old one dies.
That's right. This criminal, this fugitive from justice who actively participated in helping to cover up the rape (like i said, please don't call it abuse, call it rape) of thousands of children by his own staff, was promoted by the pope and was given a vote on who the next pope should be.
So, like I said, when you talk about the Catholic Church and sex offences against children, stereotyping is not required.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422635 is a reply to message #422616] |
Wed, 17 March 2010 14:33 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
I think you misapplied my meaning.
I didn't mean to say "use caution when letting homosexuals adopt a kid because they put kids in harms way." I was saying that we need to observe the living conditions of the child's would-be home before anyone can be allowed to adopt, regardless of their race, beliefs or life style.
The child's safety and future should be the first priority.
The would-be parent's parenting abilities should be second priority.
The parent's race, beliefs or orientation shouldn't even be considered. (Their background, however, should be looked into in order to determine if they are the right type of person to raise a kid. You don't want to just simply let a convicted felon walk away with a child without as much as a second-guess.)
[Updated on: Wed, 17 March 2010 14:37] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422638 is a reply to message #422635] |
Wed, 17 March 2010 14:42 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 15:33 |
I think you misapplied my meaning.
I didn't mean to say "use caution when letting homosexuals adopt a kid because they put kids in harms way." I was saying that we need to observe the living conditions of the child's would-be home before anyone can be allowed to adopt, regardless of their race, beliefs or life style.
|
Your post didn't really make any sense at all, frankly.
| Quote: |
The child's safety and future should be the first priority.
The would-be parent's parenting abilities should be second priority.
The parent's race, beliefs or orientation shouldn't even be considered.
|
You say beliefs shouldn't be considered... does that include if they were neo-nazis, for example? Or, to take a more likely (and more relevant) case, if they are a member of an organisation with a policy and history of systematically protecting child rapists from the law and permitting them to continue raping the children in their care? Isn't membership of an organisation as evil as that worth consideration?
| Quote: |
(Their background, however, should be looked into in order to determine if they are the right type of person to raise a kid. You don't want to just simply let a convicted felon walk away with a child without as much as a second-guess.)
|
You certainly don't. You protect children from these monsters.
The Catholic Church does the opposite; it protects the monsters and allows them to go on raping children, and it threatens its employees with the most horrific punishment imaginable if they co-operate with police investigations. Then, after demonstrating a moral standard on sexual matters that's about as bad as I can imagine, it has the fucking nerve to lecture the rest of us on morality. It rails against the real evils of the world... condoms, gay people being allowed to enjoy their lives without harrassment, etc etc etc.
I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for Ratzinger to go to.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Wed, 17 March 2010 14:46] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422642 is a reply to message #422623] |
Wed, 17 March 2010 15:02 |
 |
Clark Kent
Messages: 274
Registered: January 2010
Location: Smallville, Kansas
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 13:53 |
Fuck, you'd think if anything, the religious types would be MORE accepting...
|
Yes and no...
Yes, some churches of many different beliefs have been openly accepting homosexuals with the idea we are all God's children or whatever else about forgiveness and not judging... Some say that The Bible is not actually against homosexuality.
No, some people feel very strongly that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and the whole idea of what is "natural"... Of course we all know that a man and a man can not reproduce and the same for a woman and a woman, but that is not much of an arguement to most people, while with others that is proof enough. I am sure most of you have heard the saying, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"...
Going along with the "no" response is a thought about forgiveness that someone said to me a while back.
If you view something as a sin (E.g excessive driking, gambling, fornication), but you slip up and do it anyways, are you forgiven?
Well the general idea is we are not perfect so we make mistakes, it just depends on how you feel afterwards, and if you just plan on doing it again the next day...
Excessive drinking, gambling, and fornication are pretty common "sins" that most everyone will experience at least once in their life. But if you get in a habbit of doing these things consistently there are support groups and programs that are supposed to help you.
You may also have a homosexual experience once in your life, but to call it a "problem" or have support groups for this would make a lot of people very upset to say the least.
I think I may be going off track so I will just sum it up real fast...
If you are a homosexual and you plan on continuing that life style, but you view it as a "sin" yourself, I would not expect you to ask for forgiveness.
I don't want to argue is religion right or wrong in this thread, I just wanted to state why I thought some religions/churches may or may not accept homosexuality
I hope I didn't say anything offensive, I was trying to be delicate but it is hard for me to tell sometimes what may or may not upset some people's feelings.
[Updated on: Wed, 17 March 2010 15:03] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422643 is a reply to message #422642] |
Wed, 17 March 2010 15:29 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Clark Kent wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 16:02 |
Yes, some churches of many different beliefs have been openly accepting homosexuals with the idea we are all God's children or whatever else about forgiveness and not judging... Some say that The Bible is not actually against homosexuality.
|
the bible is rabidly homophobic, particularly the old testament. but it's also a pretty shitty moral guide in a lot of other areas too.
| Quote: |
No, some people feel very strongly that marriage should only be between a man and a woman
|
ah, marriage.
firstly, the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is actually quite recent. for a lot of history, it was more along the lines of one man and several women. indeed, this is mentioned in the bible, as well as in islamic tradition (the prophet mohammed had several wives, his favourite of whom - aisha - he married when she was six)
we did generally evolve past that thinking into the more recent idea of marriage being one man and one woman. but here's something that only became widespread VERY recently: the idea that marriage can be about love.
traditionally, marriage was always about wealth and power. form a bond with the right family, to protect your land and your money. the idea of marriage being about love is very new, and yet i think most people would agree that it's a good thing that we generally think of marriage this way now, just as they would probably agree that getting rid of polygamy is probably an improvement too.
| Quote: |
and the whole idea of what is "natural"...
|
homosexuality is perfectly natural. it isn't a choice, some people simply are homosexual. it also occurs in other species. and yet another thing that must be challenged is the idea that "natural" is automatically a synonym for "desirable". rape, for example, is very common in nature, very common indeed. most of us condemn rape, even though the bible does not.
and if you instead believe that we're created by god, then perhaps you can explain why god would create so many people homosexual, if he disapproves of the lifestyle and has inspired his followers to rail against it for two thousand years, resulting in a really miserable time for the people he created. what a prick.
| Quote: |
Of course we all know that a man and a man can not reproduce and the same for a woman and a woman, but that is not much of an arguement to most people, while with others that is proof enough.
|
if you ever come across someone who thinks a particular human right ought to be denied to a homosexual person on the grounds that they can't reproduce, then i will be the first to stand up and say that i don't want kids. i just don't, it's a personal choice and i've never hid it from anybody. shall i be denied the same human right in question? if so, will it also be denied people who for one reason or another are infertile?
| Quote: |
I am sure most of you have heard the saying, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"...
|
sure, but it's complete crap.
firstly, there's no evidence at all to suggest that the adam and eve story is even slightly accurate.
secondly, even if it was, even if it was proven that a god did create us and has stern ideas about how we should behave, i'll still be in favour of democracy instead.
| Quote: |
Going along with the "no" response is a thought about forgiveness that someone said to me a while back.
If you view something as a sin (E.g excessive driking, gambling, fornication), but you slip up and do it anyways, are you forgiven?
|
how do you define "sin"? i generally hear that the word means something that offends a god. well, then...
- firstly it's a completely meaningless statement until you've proven that -a- the god exists at all, and -b- he does indeed disapprove of the action you're talking about.
- secondly, like i said, even if you proved -a- and -b-, i'll still be in favour of democracy over theocracy.
on the question of forgiveness, your question seems rather incomplete to me. what did you do, who was affected by it, what did you do to attempt to rectify the situation, and who do you think is the party to do the forgiving?
| Quote: |
Well the general idea is we are not perfect so we make mistakes, it just depends on how you feel afterwards, and if you just plan on doing it again the next day...
|
you tell me.
| Quote: |
Excessive drinking, gambling, and fornication are pretty common "sins" that most everyone will experience at least once in their life.
|
see above re: definition of "sin". what is your argument against these three, just so i can be clear?
| Quote: |
But if you get in a habbit of doing these things consistently there are support groups and programs that are supposed to help you.
|
sure.
| Quote: |
You may also have a homosexual experience once in your life, but to call it a "problem" or have support groups for this would make a lot of people very upset to say the least.
|
and if the homosexual experience was with a consenting adult, why would it be a problem and why would a support group be necessary?
| Quote: |
If you are a homosexual and you plan on continuing that life style, but you view it as a "sin" yourself, I would not expect you to ask for forgiveness.
|
I, personally, would expect the Christian churches to ask for forgiveness for spending the last two thousand years brainwashing us that homosexuality is indeed a sin, as well as quite a lot of other things.
| Quote: |
I hope I didn't say anything offensive, I was trying to be delicate but it is hard for me to tell sometimes what may or may not upset some people's feelings.
|
Just talk straight would be my advice, and don't dodge questions.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Wed, 17 March 2010 15:36] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422650 is a reply to message #422647] |
Wed, 17 March 2010 17:31 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Clark Kent wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 18:06 |
First off I would define "sin" as anything that The Bible says is wrong.
|
That's all that is required to define a sin, then? You don't actually have to make a moral case against it, you only need to say that a book disapproves of it?
Well, the Bible disapproves of a great many things and outright prohibits many others, many of which many modern Christians do - various dietary laws, for example. More importantly, if there's anything which makes the biblical god angrier than anything else, it's disbelief in him, or worshipping gods other than himself.
| Quote: |
Of course if you don't believe in The Bible or God for that matter, than none of that even matters.
|
It would be nice if that was the case. Sadly those who do believe in god and the bible tend to be very keen to insist that we all follow their rules.
| Quote: |
As I said I didn't want to debate truth in either.
|
That's a shame, because I do.
| Quote: |
I wasn't saying homosexuals should be denied the right to have kids because they could not make them themselves, I am sure there are many homosexual couples that are more than capable of raising kids to be functional and productive members of society (even better than some heterosexual couples).
|
Cool.
| Quote: |
That was more along with the "natural" part, as in nature doesn't allow for them to make kids together, so a lot of people would see it as they are not supposed to have kids...
|
My earlier question re: infertile people seems to apply here.
You say "not supposed to". That implies somebody decided that the person would be homosexual and would not be able to biologically conceive a child (not quite true, but at least would not be inclined to enter a heterosexual relationship). If somebody is infertile, is it not the case that this person was "not supposed to have kids", decided by the same somebody who creates certain people homosexual?
| Quote: |
I hope you don't think I am "dodging" questions here
|
It was advice for the future, not a reproach for the past.
| Quote: |
but I don't see any point in discussing the truth in the religion part.
|
I'm afraid I do.
On the day the religious stop endlessly interfering with the lives of others, stop corrupting democratic processes, stop brainwashing children and stop asking for privileges they don't deserve, I'll have nothing to complain about and I won't care whether what they believe is true.
Sadly that day has not arrived yet, and until it does, their ideas are fair game for ridicule and contempt.
| Quote: |
I just wanted to say a couple reasons why I would expect some believers to be for or against homosexuality in response to Zimmer's comment.
|
It might be a good idea to let people make their own objections.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422659 is a reply to message #422650] |
Wed, 17 March 2010 21:22 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 18:31 |
| Clark Kent wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 18:06 |
First off I would define "sin" as anything that The Bible says is wrong.
|
That's all that is required to define a sin, then? You don't actually have to make a moral case against it, you only need to say that a book disapproves of it?
Well, the Bible disapproves of a great many things and outright prohibits many others, many of which many modern Christians do - various dietary laws, for example. More importantly, if there's anything which makes the biblical god angrier than anything else, it's disbelief in him, or worshipping gods other than himself.
| Quote: |
Of course if you don't believe in The Bible or God for that matter, than none of that even matters.
|
It would be nice if that was the case. Sadly those who do believe in god and the bible tend to be very keen to insist that we all follow their rules.
|
If I remember correctly, you mentioned in another thread that Christianity basically has a governmental seat in your country, right?
That kind of thing is against my belief as well - we are charged to spread his word but not shove it down their throats. If we did what we could and they still don't believe, we don't relentlessly pursue it.
Also, we are seperate from Catholicism and Baptism and all the other splinter denominations... that's why stories about this and that church irritate me, because they get associated with Christianity as a whole.
As for the last part - would I force a nonbeliever to obey a Biblical rule? No. Would I fight against a governemtal decree legally allowing something I consider a sin? Yes, because not doing so would be allowing it, thus being an accomplice to said sin.
Just my thoughts. Like I said, I just want to show that my - and my church's - position doesn't match other denominations.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422667 is a reply to message #422659] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 01:43 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 22:22 |
If I remember correctly, you mentioned in another thread that Christianity basically has a governmental seat in your country, right?
|
Christianity is automatically given a whole block of seats in Parliament. 20-something of them, I believe. (There's never ever been a vote about this - it was set up when the king ran the show and elections were never even thought of.) We the people can vote for one MP for our region, as opposed to Americans who can vote for a senator and a congress member.
That's not all. Christianity also has control over thousands and thousands of schools, as does the Catholic church. More recently, Judaism and Islam have been given control over schools too. I'm not sure if any other religions have, Sikhism might do, but the idea that a religion can have control over a school ought to be rather alarming. It's no different than the idea of a political ideology having control over a school. A "Catholic school" or a "Church of England school" or a "Protestant school" ought to be viewed the same as if someone said "a Labour school", a "Conservative school", a "Socialist school", "Communist school", "Neo-conservative school", "Nationalist school", etc.
And if you want to see just how well religiously segregating our children works out, just look at Northern Ireland.
And that's not all the privileges it has, though I'd say the automatic block of parliamentary seats and the control over thousands of schools are the important issues. Technically the monarch is the head of state. It isn't Gordon Brown, it wasn't Tony Blair. The monarch is also the head of the Church.
I will admit that our current Queen is a decent person, but the reason I can say this is precisely because the monarchy doesn't really meddle in politics anymore, which begs the question why we still have it.
What else? Blasphemy law. We only just got rid of that a couple of years ago. It used to be illegal to "blaspheme" Christianity. That's right. It has a huge block of seats in Parliament whether we like it or not, it has control over thousands of schools, its leader is the undemocratically elected head of state, but if we criticise it and its power, we're breaking the law, or at least we were until a couple of years ago.
Of course, like all other religions, it doesn't have to pay taxes. In the Church of England's case this is quite odd, because it's just about the biggest land-owner in the country, and it's very eager to invest in dodgy companies for its own profits. It's invested in arms dealers who supply countries like Indonesia, for example, an Islamic dictatorship who committed horrific crimes against humanity against the largely Christian society of East Timor, and used British and American weapons to do so. It's invested in the housing market and that all went tits up for the church, of course.
And despite all this, despite the fact it's got all this land (which it didn't buy... it was given it by the monarchy), despite the fact it doesn't pay taxes, despite its dodgy financial dealings, it's still financially fucked and it's still always begging the taxpayer to pull it out. Well, I'm sorry, but if a company is doing as badly as that, then going belly-up would be a mercy. I don't see the Archbishop of Canterbury offering to sell either of his two palaces, for example, and living somewhere a little more modest. And this is a man who loves, absolutely loves to lecture we Brits on the dangers of "materialism", which is the best knock at atheism he can think of. That's right - he's basically the CEO of a company which insists on not paying taxes, which has very shady investment practices, which is if not the biggest landowner in the country must come pretty close, and he himself has two palaces both funded by the taxpayer. By comparison, I don't aspire to great wealth or extravagant possessions - give me my basic human rights, the freedom to live my life unharrassed and the freedom to examine and question the world, and to write and play my music, and I'm happy. Who's the materialistic one here, I wonder?
| Quote: |
That kind of thing is against my belief as well - we are charged to spread his word but not shove it down their throats. If we did what we could and they still don't believe, we don't relentlessly pursue it.
|
What about children, what do you tell them about Christianity?
As for the blasphemy law, well, as ridiculous and immoral as blasphemy laws are, it's in line with Christian teaching. Blasphemy is very sternly prohibited in the Bible, is it not?
| Quote: |
Also, we are seperate from Catholicism and Baptism and all the other splinter denominations... that's why stories about this and that church irritate me, because they get associated with Christianity as a whole.
|
I am perfectly happy to recognise the differences between the innumerable flavours of Christianity, so long as they don't deny the similarities (which tend to outnumber the differences)
| Quote: |
As for the last part - would I force a nonbeliever to obey a Biblical rule? No. Would I fight against a governemtal decree legally allowing something I consider a sin? Yes, because not doing so would be allowing it, thus being an accomplice to said sin.
|
This seems a rather contradictory position.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Thu, 18 March 2010 01:52] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422672 is a reply to message #422616] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 05:56 |
 |
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
There is zero research to support the arguement that there's a relationship between homosexual lifestyle and child molestation.
Infact, it is proven that a child molester is unlikely to be attracted to adult males at all.
That's a very 1970's attitude, and it was as ignorant back then as it is now. It's worse if you still think it now, as there has been some enlightenment in this area and people's eyes have opened to the matter more.
This is akin to calling Jewish people baby killers. Minority groups that are disliked or feared often have the worst stereo types applied to them, even if there is no grounds for it.
I think it's a pitiful arguement to suggest that children are in harms way from molestation if the adoptive parents are homosexual. Especially coming from the Catholic church, it's beyond belief they of all people would suggest this.
However, there is an arguement against homosexuals adopting children...
| Quote: |
American College of Pediatricians (ACP)
"Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern. This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity. This is concerning since adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts..."
|
Another reference
There are areguements against this too in all fairness, but there have been numerous studies that support the basic idea of children raised in a homosexual environment are more likely to be homosexual, or at least sexually confused.
Even if you accept this argument as fact, I suppose it depends on your view of whether it actually matters or not?
Lets assume that it is true (I know this is an assumption, but let's assume it is).
If the child has an increased chance of becoming homosexual because of being raised in a homosexual environment, is this a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422674 is a reply to message #422672] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 06:54 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 06:56 |
There is zero research to support the arguement that there's a relationship between homosexual lifestyle and child molestation.
Infact, it is proven that a child molester is unlikely to be attracted to adult males at all.
That's a very 1970's attitude, and it was as ignorant back then as it is now. It's worse if you still think it now, as there has been some enlightenment in this area and people's eyes have opened to the matter more.
This is akin to calling Jewish people baby killers. Minority groups that are disliked or feared often have the worst stereo types applied to them, even if there is no grounds for it.
I think it's a pitiful arguement to suggest that children are in harms way from molestation if the adoptive parents are homosexual. Especially coming from the Catholic church, it's beyond belief they of all people would suggest this.
|
the irony is, there actually are two good arguments to suggest that catholics are more likely to molest children than non-catholics.
the first is the knowledge that if you were a catholic priest and you did rape a child, your company would help you cover it up. of course, the fear of punishment is certainly not what stops most people raping children - basic moral concerns as well as simply not being attracted to kids does the job for most of us - but there you have one of the three reasons not to do it shattered.
the second is simply a product of extreme sexual repression. this is well known to have damaging effects on people's mental state. to give a simple example, prison. many people who enter into homosexual acts in prison aren't actually homosexual, they're just desperate. another example, closer to the point, is how common rape is in islamic countries. one reason for this is the fact that their governments do not recognise rape as a crime - indeed some of them recognise rape as a legally sanctioned punishment (i'm seriously not making that up), the other reason is a combination of dangerous sexual repression of men and the teaching that women are worth about halfway between men and cattle.
| Quote: |
However, there is an arguement against homosexuals adopting children...
| Quote: |
American College of Pediatricians (ACP)
"Data on the long-term outcomes of children placed in homosexual households is sparse and gives reason for concern. This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity. This is concerning since adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts..."
|
Another reference
There are areguements against this too in all fairness, but there have been numerous studies that support the basic idea of children raised in a homosexual environment are more likely to be homosexual, or at least sexually confused.
Even if you accept this argument as fact, I suppose it depends on your view of whether it actually matters or not?
Lets assume that it is true (I know this is an assumption, but let's assume it is).
If the child has an increased chance of becoming homosexual because of being raised in a homosexual environment, is this a bad thing?
|
No. The only reason for the supposed negative effects of being homosexual, the problems a homosexual person could suffer that a heterosexual person would not, is the result of the appalling prejudice they suffer, almost entirely thanks to religion.
Secondly, I don't accept the argument in the first place. If somebody is going to say that raising kids in a homosexual environment is going to make them homosexual, how on earth can we explain the existence of homosexuals in heterosexual environments, especially since the societies have always, always persecuted homosexuality?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422675 is a reply to message #422674] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 07:59 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:54 |
I don't accept the argument in the first place. If somebody is going to say that raising kids in a homosexual environment is going to make them homosexual, how on earth can we explain the existence of homosexuals in heterosexual environments, especially since the societies have always, always persecuted homosexuality?
|
You followed that through logically, but you have changed what I said. The findings suggest a greater chance, not a certainty.
You said "is going to make them homosexual", this implies an absolute; I never said that.
They are suggesting that there is simply a greater chance of the child being homosexual, not a certainty.
Use that same logic and think of it from this perspective:
A hetrosexual couple's offspring have an increased chance of being hetrosexual.
Therefore does it not seem logical that a homosexual environment would produce offspring that had an increased chance of being homosexual?
I don't know the figures, but it could prove that the child has a 15% chance of being homosexual if raised by homosexual aprents, instead of 10% in a hetrosexual environment. I'm not suggesing certainties, just an increased chance.
You must accept that children learn behaviour from parents? It doesn't seem impossible to me that homosexual parents influence the chance fo their children being homosexual.
Can you really not accept that there is a chance of this?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it just seems obvious to me o.0
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:54 |
The only reason for the supposed negative effects of being homosexual, the problems a homosexual person could suffer that a heterosexual person would not, is the result of the appalling prejudice they suffer, almost entirely thanks to religion.
|
I have thought about this, and as I am about to be a father very soon, I took this discussion seriously. I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer my child to not be homosexual.
Not because I am a biggot or a homophobe, but because my Brother is homosexual and he has suffered all his life for this.
He was bullied at school, he has been ridiculed by people all his life, he is lonely and is often depressed. Using his words, not mine, "Being homosexual is a harder life, and not One many people would willingly choose.".
He finds it harder to fit in, and his sexualality affects every part of his life.
I love my Brother dearly, and hate seeing him un-happy. It breaks my heart.
It's a cowardly thing for me to say, I concede that. But I do not want my child to suffer that same life of prejudice.
You could argue that I should teach my child if they was homosexual that these people are ignorant (and they are), but it would still hurt their feelings, and I want them to be as happy as possible.
Yes, the only reason for me to not want this life style is because of other people prejudice, but I don't care. I don't think people's views ar going to change any time soon, and I don't want my child to suffer the ignorance of others while the world catches up! Is that so wrong of me?
If I apply this to my own child, I would be a hypocrit to say I was fine with another child entering a homosexual environment.
[Updated on: Thu, 18 March 2010 08:01] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422677 is a reply to message #422675] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 08:14 |
 |
Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:59 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:54 |
I don't accept the argument in the first place. If somebody is going to say that raising kids in a homosexual environment is going to make them homosexual, how on earth can we explain the existence of homosexuals in heterosexual environments, especially since the societies have always, always persecuted homosexuality?
|
You followed that through logically, but you have changed what I said. The findings suggest a greater chance, not a certainty.
You said "is going to make them homosexual", this implies an absolute; I never said that.
They are suggesting that there is simply a greater chance of the child being homosexual, not a certainty.
Use that same logic and think of it from this perspective:
A hetrosexual couple's offspring have an increased chance of being hetrosexual.
Therefore does it not seem logical that a homosexual environment would produce offspring that had an increased chance of being homosexual?
I don't know the figures, but it could prove that the child has a 15% chance of being homosexual if raised by homosexual aprents, instead of 10% in a hetrosexual environment. I'm not suggesing certainties, just an increased chance.
You must accept that children learn behaviour from parents? It doesn't seem impossible to me that homosexual parents influence the chance fo their children being homosexual.
Can you really not accept that there is a chance of this?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it just seems obvious to me o.0
|
That is not the case. Kids brought up by SameSex Couples do not have a higher chance of becoming homosexual.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422678 is a reply to message #422675] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 08:25 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 08:59 |
You followed that through logically, but you have changed what I said. The findings suggest a greater chance, not a certainty.
You said "is going to make them homosexual", this implies an absolute; I never said that.
They are suggesting that there is simply a greater chance of the child being homosexual, not a certainty.
Use that same logic and think of it from this perspective:
A hetrosexual couple's offspring have an increased chance of being hetrosexual.
Therefore does it not seem logical that a homosexual environment would produce offspring that had an increased chance of being homosexual?
I don't know the figures, but it could prove that the child has a 15% chance of being homosexual if raised by homosexual aprents, instead of 10% in a hetrosexual environment. I'm not suggesing certainties, just an increased chance.
|
Well, I don't think that can be conclusively stated.
Is it not much more likely that, instead, children who happen to be homosexual and have heterosexual parents are more likely to grow up in an environment that disapproves of them, and therefore they will feel that they have to keep their sexuality secret?
| Quote: |
You must accept that children learn behaviour from parents? It doesn't seem impossible to me that homosexual parents influence the chance fo their children being homosexual.
|
Well, if parents are:
- racist
- homophobic
- violent
- religious fanatics
then this will certainly affect the kids and probably make them more likely to grow up with these too. but there are two reasons why "homosexual" doesn't belong on the list.
1. nobody's explained why homosexuality is actually a bad thing
2. i am willing to grant that if a heterosexual child sees his homosexual parents at it, he might be inspired to try a homosexual relationship. i'll grant that. it sounds damn silly to me, but i'll grant it for the sake of your argument.
what i can't grant is the possibility that they might, as a result of trying that, "turn gay".
| Quote: |
I have thought about this, and as I am about to be a father very soon, I took this discussion seriously. I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer my child to not be homosexual.
Not because I am a biggot or a homophobe, but because my Brother is homosexual and he has suffered all his life for this.
He was bullied at school, he has been ridiculed by people all his life, he is lonely and is often depressed. Using his words, not mine, "Being homosexual is a harder life, and not One many people would willingly choose.".
He finds it harder to fit in, and his sexualality affects every part of his life.
I love my Brother dearly, and hate seeing him un-happy. It breaks my heart.
It's a cowardly thing for me to say, I concede that. But I do not want my child to suffer that same life of prejudice.
|
I completely understand; you make a good argument, but it still hinges on the case being proven that you could actually make someone more likely to become homosexual if the parents are, and it doesn't change the fact that the over-riding solution to the problem is simply to combat homophobia, and the best way of doing that is to protect children from religion until they're old enough to understand it critically. of course, that solves a multitude of other problems too.
and there is a point to be made in the opposite direction.
if a child is homosexual, who is most likely to treat them with the understanding they need? homosexual parents, or heterosexual parents? who's less likely to be homophobic?
| Quote: |
You could argue that I should teach my child if they was homosexual that these people are ignorant (and they are), but it would still hurt their feelings, and I want them to be as happy as possible.
Yes, the only reason for me to not want this life style is because of other people prejudice, but I don't care. I don't think people's views ar going to change any time soon, and I don't want my child to suffer the ignorance of others while the world catches up! Is that so wrong of me?
If I apply this to my own child, I would be a hypocrit to say I was fine with another child entering a homosexual environment.
|
it's a good point you make, although see my response to the same stuff above.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Thu, 18 March 2010 08:26] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422679 is a reply to message #422616] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 08:40 |
 |
wubwub
Messages: 142
Registered: May 2009
Location: Ontario
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I beleive that homosexuals should choose not to have kids, but forcing them not to is wrong i gusse.
They shouldn't really have kids because say two females adopt a male baby. Now that baby is going to have two women as parents. That male baby needs a father role model instead of two females.
Not to mention in school if other kids find out they will more then likely make of fun him.
When renegade goes Wub, it never goes back
(or at least until I re-install renegade anyways)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422681 is a reply to message #422678] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 09:22 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 |
It still hinges on the case being proven that you could actually make someone more likely to become homosexual if the parents are
|
Yeah, I agree. It does all pretty much ride on that. I do tend to think though that you might be putting the cart before the horse with this:
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 |
Is it not much more likely that, instead, children who happen to be homosexual and have heterosexual parents are more likely to grow up in an environment that disapproves of them, and therefore they will feel that they have to keep their sexuality secret?
|
Perhaps I'm over estimating the influence parents have, or perhaps you're under-estimating their affect.
I am a believer in "Monkey see, monkey do".
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 |
there is a point to be made in the opposite direction.
if a child is homosexual, who is most likely to treat them with the understanding they need? homosexual parents, or heterosexual parents? who's less likely to be homophobic?
|
You're right, the homosexual parents might have a greater chance of being empathetic and understanding.
I'm going to throw the unconditional love you have for your child in there just not to write off hetrosexual parents ability to support their child, but I concede that there are children too afraid to tell their parents through fear of judgement (arguable that in some cases this may be justifyable fear, and in other cases their own fear being un-justified).
However, in my mind, if they do have a greater chance of being homosexual because of their parents being homosexual too, then surely the need for this understanding would be reduced if they was in a hetrosexual environment because there is less chance of them being homosexual?
Hmm, kinda weak arguement I suppose, and leaves a prejudice taste in my mouth actually, or at least an ignorant attitude (avoid the issue altogether then we dont need to understand it!1!!!1!!), but I can kinda see this point.
Meh, all I know is, I love my child already before it being born, and I only want the best, most happy life for them.
I think we can at least agree that the world would be happier if only the homophobes would grow up and learn some understanding. Then whether or not having homosexual parents means there is more chance of you being homosexual would be a mute, irrelevant point.
Homosexuals are just people. My Brother has never hurt anyone. I love him with all my heart, I hate seeing the suffering he endures.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422683 is a reply to message #422681] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 09:40 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 |
Is it not much more likely that, instead, children who happen to be homosexual and have heterosexual parents are more likely to grow up in an environment that disapproves of them, and therefore they will feel that they have to keep their sexuality secret?
|
Perhaps I'm over estimating the influence parents have, or perhaps you're under-estimating their affect.
I am a believer in "Monkey see, monkey do".
|
well, if you see some people kissing and you feel like trying it, aren't you more likely to want to try it with someone you're actually attracted to...?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 10:25 |
You're right, the homosexual parents might have a greater chance of being empathetic and understanding.
|
i think there's no "might" about it. i'm pretty confident that a far greater proportion of heterosexual adults are overly homophobic than homosexual adults.
| Quote: |
I'm going to throw the unconditional love you have for your child in there just not to write off hetrosexual parents ability to support their child
|
i'd like to think that all parents had unconditional love for their children, but i suspect it isn't always the case.
| Quote: |
but I concede that there are children too afraid to tell their parents through fear of judgement (arguable that in some cases this may be justifyable fear, and in other cases their own fear being un-justified).
|
and i think it's a much higher number than you probably think.
as for whether it's justified, well, it would be difficult to know in advance for sure how your parents would react if you told them you were gay. i wonder how much thought your brother put into it before telling you and your parents?
| Quote: |
However, in my mind, if they do have a greater chance of being homosexual because of their parents being homosexual too, then surely the need for this understanding would be reduced if they was in a hetrosexual environment because there is less chance of them being homosexual?
Hmm, kinda weak arguement I suppose
|
i must admit i think i should be having an easier time refuting it.
| Quote: |
I think we can at least agree that the world would be happier if only the homophobes would grow up and learn some understanding. Then whether or not having homosexual parents means there is more chance of you being homosexual would be a mute, irrelevant point.
|
of course.
| Quote: |
Homosexuals are just people. My Brother has never hurt anyone. I love him with all my heart, I hate seeing the suffering he endures.
|
i'll be honest, if you had tried to make the point without giving a touching example of someone close to you, i probably wouldn't have thought the argument was worth much.
that is probably more my fault than anything else.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 11 16:33:34 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01481 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
