Catholics deny gays right to adopt.

[Don Corleone]

Just lie all the time?

Who said anything about lying? I'm talking about not flaunting it. I don't tell you when I have sex with my wife, do I? I consider it equally vulgar for straight couples to tongue-kiss and fondle each other in public.

Well, I was just reading on another forum where somebody was telling stories about his two twin brothers, one of which was gay. The other brother kept coming back with black eyes and nearly broken bones. Such is the rural south apparently.

This is already a crime, and it's known as assault. How does building a gay community center solve this?

[Rameusb5]

Hehe there is always one, boohooohooo me so insecure, why internet not believe I kiss girls???

I couldn't care less if someone is gay, one of my best friends is gay(ohhhh suepect!!!!), and he is nice enough not to be very gay about it. Do you enjoy watching two men kiss? I don't, I find it a repulsive sight. That doesn't mean I hate them for doing it.

By the way, what are you wearing?

I'll rescind my statement about your insecurities. It was over the line.

But that doesn't make your original statement that all heterosexuals are homophobic any less wrong.


And I'm wearing a pink tutu, obviously!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Who said anything about lying? I'm talking about not flaunting it. I don't tell you when I have sex with my wife, do I? I consider it equally vulgar for straight couples to tongue-kiss and fondle each other in public.

Disagree with flaunting all you want, it doesn't place the blame in their court. Straight couples who fondle in public don't get assaulted, that's why they're not a victim class.

This is already a crime, and it's known as assault. How does building a gay community center solve this?

This was in response to "my great great great great great grandfather may have been a bigot, by no one is today".

Maybe the center could have a first aid kit and kung fu lessons

[Fragony]

And I'm wearing a pink tutu, obviously!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH

But that doesn't make your original statement that all heterosexuals are homophobic any less wrong.

Just proved it

[doc_bean]

Wow! Cynical much? Has it ever dawned on you that in the past, homosexuality wasn't a big issue for the church because there was a reason that people referred to it as "the love that dare not speak it's name"? I think until 30 years ago, homosexuality was strictly underground throughout the Christian world,

Not really, Dante mentions the sodomites in his Divina Comedia (or whatever it's exactly called). I think the cities of the renaissance and possibly medieval times had their fair share of homosexuals. I'm not saying the church approved, the sodomites did go to hell afterall.

and the reason the Church didn't speak out against it was that for the most part, it wasn't being thrust into everyone's faces constantly as it is now.

I think they pushed it to the forefront because they couldn't sell so many other points to their public anymore. Pre-marital sex could still be bad since most people attending mass are married, and they don't want their kids screwing around (like most people don't want that, apparently), homosexuality could be bad, because damnit, they want grandchildren !

Of course, certain, less popular morals got pushed back a little. Acceptance of divorce is starting to happen, abortion is a hot issue, but there some surprising cases where they did consent (okay, it was royalty). Sitting in church on Sundays ? Masses are cut to 30 minutes these days. Confession ? I was raised Catholic, went ot a Catholic school in a Catholic country and only once did I get the chance to 'confess'. I was only allowed to say one pre-written sentence then.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't the act of confession supposedly much more of a core issue to Catholicism than homosexuality ?

Sure, there have always been homosexuals. But it's only been within the past 30 years that people have felt that their choice of sexual partner entitled them to special victim class status

Wow, so the Catholic church now protest to victim classes ? Besides, I never saw them as a victim class and most homosexuals that i've know didn't really either. They did feel that they had it a little harder, perhaps, but that isn't the same thing.

and felt a need to regale us all with pride marches

You're making it sound like they're some kind of evil protest marches instead of the parties that they usually are.

and demands for community centers.

Uh, well some organisations exist, I assume some of them even get support from the government, but so do the boy scouts and a gew thousand organisations for immigrants, I don't see the problem.

The gay lobby's stated goal of being treated equally strikes me as rather Orwellian, as they're generally complaining about NOT receiving special treatment (that's not the case here, hence the use of the term 'generally').

This is about gay marriage I assume ? I can't think of anything else it could be about.

I don't think religious organisations should be forced to wed homosexual couples. Hell no. But as a civil union, I don't see any reason why a marriage contract shouldn't be able to exist between two people of the same gender.

I've heard the reasoning of why it would be special treatement, (they're still allowed to amrry the opposite sex just like the rest of us), but grankly, that always struck me as BS.

As for your use of the term homophobia, I'd like to get you on record here as to what exactly that means. Is it the belief that homosexuality is immoral conduct that makes one homophobic? Or is it not 100% endorsement of the homosexual lobby? I'm just curious, because that term comes up a lot, and I've never gotten a firm defintion on it, or when I do, gay-issue advocates seem to misuse it. It seems to be some sort of slur that means since you don't agree with a particular gay advocacy position, you're a bigot. Or did I miss something?

Homophobia is a bit like racism, in that it isn't always clearly defined. I'd generally say homophobia is
1. literally, a fear of homosexuals. (or hate of homosexuals)
2. descrimination based solely on the fact that they are homosexual

The first point is quite I think. It refers to people who actively avoid homosexuals, try to get them out of a community, attack them, try to force them back into the closet, etc.
The second point is a little harder to define of course. It means that all things equal, if person A was heterosexual and person B was homosexual, you'd prefer person A. Of course this only applies if the degree to which you judge people based on their sexuality is significant compared to toher factors. Say, your an employer and you'd hire the obviously less qualified hetero opposed to the nearly-overqualified homo.

Now, I think it's possible to be opposed to 'gay culture' without necessarily being a homophobe. But then you should be opposed on the basis of how they act (or are represented) and not just on the basis of their sexuality. Nobody has to like shows like queer eye for the straight guy or Will and Grace or appreciate the finer points of Gloria Estefan if they don't want to. And you're allowed to find the gay pride parade annoying, because you ahte parades and the music and whatnot. But then you'd also hate the love parade and pretty much any other parade. It's not because there are gay people involved that you hate it.

besides, a lot of homoseuxals are slightly embarrased by how 'they' are constantly portraited by the media too, probably a lot more than you think.

And FTR, I don't think not supporting gay marriage is homophobic in itself, though I'd say the reasons why people protest it are often homophobic.

Thanks for the congrats on my senior member status (nobody was more shocked than I) I think it came about last May.

Strange, I either missed it completely or had forgotten you were a senior member (damn aging). You deserve it, in any case.

[King Henry V]

I thought give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's applied not only to obeying the tax laws of the land, but all laws of the land.

I still don't see how even if they are a private company that they could operate outside the law of the land. It's not like a private business can shoot their employees because they don't get any government money.

Surely if the law of the land said 'no abortions'a private clinic would have to obey that too?

If they close the adoption centers then they are the ones acting as dogs in the manger.

Well if that is the case:

-Should the Catholic Church be prosecuted for refusing to perform marriage services for people based on their sexual orientation?

-Should the Catholic Church be prosecuted for refusing to hire people based on their sexual orientation (no homosexual priests)?

-Should the Catholic Church be prosecuted for refusing to hire people based on their gender (no female priests)?

[Xiahou]

For the record, the Catholic Church here doesn't mention a thing about contraceptives, that's mostly an issue with the African clergy, I think. All priests that I know ignore the rules against giving divorced people communion. Priests here also 'bless' second marriages, which isn't quite the same as real catholic wedding of course, but they are moving with the times.

All throughout high school I was told repeatedly that contraception was wrong. I was also told again during my pre-marriage "class". It was mentioned quite often to me.

I don't know of any rule against giving divorced people communion. The Church recognizes the need for civil divorce and there is no such thing as religious divorce- your vows are made for life or not made at all. We had a Catholic school teacher who was divorced- she was only terminated when she re-married. She was told ahead of time that she couldn't work there if she did and made her decision with that knowledge.

Catholic priests should not "bless" second marriages- I know that to be explicitly against the rules.

[doc_bean]

All throughout high school I was told repeatedly that contraception was wrong. I was also told again during my pre-marriage "class". It was mentioned quite often to me.

I don't know of any rule against giving divorced people communion. The Church recognizes the need for civil divorce and there is no such thing as religious divorce- your vows are made for life or not made at all. We had a Catholic school teacher who was divorced- she was only terminated when she re-married. She was told ahead of time that she couldn't work there if she did and made her decision with that knowledge.

Catholic priests should not "bless" second marriages- I know that to be explicitly against the rules.

See how different our Catholic Churches are ? I rest my case on this matter.

[Don Corleone]

Catholic priests should not "bless" second marriages- I know that to be explicitly against the rules.

Not if the spouse(s) receive an annullment for the first marriage(s).

Doc, the church and it's rules are universal. There is no difference in the rules in Afrcia, Asia, Americas, Australia or Europe (always have to be different, don't you guys). The only difference is how much the local priest enforces them and what he emphasizes and deemphasizes. But that doesn't mean that the church has a non-universal system in place, it just means it has individuals within its ranks that take authority unto themselves, arguably where they shouldn't.

From what I've seen of European church attendance, it's no wonder they give you people your way on everything. I think only 10% of the population regularly attends church services (Muslims excluded, they drive the numbers up) and of that 10% the vast majority is over age 60. I don't think your the poster children for Christianity (Protestant or Catholic).

[doc_bean]

Not if the spouse(s) receive an annullment for the first marriage(s).

Doc, the church and it's rules are universal. There is no difference in the rules in Afrcia, Asia, Americas, Australia or Europe (always have to be different, don't you guys). The only difference is how much the local priest enforces them and what he emphasizes and deemphasizes. But that doesn't mean that the church has a non-universal system in place, it just means it has individuals within its ranks that take authority unto themselves, arguably where they shouldn't.

It's not just the priests, it's the bishops and cardinals too, that's the way the system works, it's much more decentalized than most people think.

I've pointed out the differences before, but you all seem to doubt me. You can request a blessing of your second marriage, even without an annulment, here. Contraceptives are freely discussed in catholic schools (heck, we almost had a condom machine, and our 9th and 10th grade 'religion' teacher wasn't married but living with her 'partner', who did turn out to be male, to our surprise).

Did you know that according to offical church doctrine (TM) Mary isn't even an actual virgin ? Someone was sued here for claiming that, apparently he was right, no religious figure countered his claim anyway, and he could back it with papal decrees or whatnot. Try selling THAT in South America.

Sure they have an official version of the faith, but they allow much, much freedom in interpretation. I'm not even sure what the universal rules are, given that the sacraments aren't even considered important anymore here

[Don Corleone]

You're all a bunch of heretics, what can I say? (NOTE: Comment meant in jest. Ser C, no need to rebuke me).

There's always been a debate about whether Mary was a virgin AFTER Jesus was born. I don't think any official Christian church disputes that Mary was a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born, as that's exactly what the 3 synoptic gospels say, in unequivocable terms.

[Watchman]

We occasionally get them funny papers redoing the whole Jesus thing... tabloid style. "Mary pregnant! Josef denies culpability!" "Cult leader rides into town! Thousands shout Hosiannah!"

[doc_bean]

I don't think any official Christian church disputes that Mary was a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born, as that's exactly what the 3 synoptic gospels say, in unequivocable terms.

Apparently it does, the virgin part was a metaphor for being free of hereditary sin, or something.

Good old Benedict recently allowed another fringe group into the Mother Church, I believe they support the Mel Gibson version of Catholicism with masses in Latin and whatnot (not sure about the anti semitism), there's also an oriental version of Catholicism which is far more resemblant of the Orthodox version if you ask me. The Church mainly cares about being there, and preferably being the only one there, they allow a lot of 'heresy' if they believe it might give them (long term) benefits. But like i said, this isn't always a bad thing.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It's not just the priests, it's the bishops and cardinals too, that's the way the system works, it's much more decentalized than most people think.

Bishops in particular do have a lot of power when it comes to details of practice of the liturgy, appointment of priests and control of schools, but none at all when it comes to doctrine.

I've pointed out the differences before, but you all seem to doubt me.

We do believe you, but it would seem that Belgium is different from most other places.

You can request a blessing of your second marriage, even without an annulment, here.

You can ask in England, but you will politely told "no".

Contraceptives are freely discussed in catholic schools

I should hope so. Contrary to what some might say, Catholic schools do not seek to control Children by keeping them in ignorance.

heck, we almost had a condom machine,

Not sure how you can almost have a condom machine, but this would certainly not happen in England.

and our 9th and 10th grade 'religion' teacher wasn't married but living with her 'partner', who did turn out to be male, to our surprise

This does happen in England, and why not as long as she was a good teacher.

Did you know that according to offical church doctrine (TM) Mary isn't even an actual virgin ? Someone was sued here for claiming that, apparently he was right, no religious figure countered his claim anyway, and he could back it with papal decrees or whatnot. Try selling THAT in South America.

Citation please! The Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty clear and talks about "perpetual virginity" (499)

Sure they have an official version of the faith, but they allow much, much freedom in interpretation. I'm not even sure what the universal rules are, given that the sacraments aren't even considered important anymore here

Clearly it is happening in Belgium, but even a Belgian bishop is not allowed to change what is allowed.

Apparently it does, the virgin part was a metaphor for being free of hereditary sin, or something.

I think you are confusing the Virgin Birth with the Immaculate Conception.

Good old Benedict recently allowed another fringe group into the Mother Church, I believe they support the Mel Gibson version of Catholicism with masses in Latin and whatnot (not sure about the anti semitism),

Another citation would be helpful so we know what this is about.

there's also an oriental version of Catholicism which is far more resemblant of the Orthodox version if you ask me.

Similar to eastern orthodox in sacramental rites, but holding the same doctrine as other Catholics, unlike the Orthodox churches - the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, the Assumption (as opposed to the Dormition) and Papal infalibility)

Not if the spouse(s) receive an annullment for the first marriage(s).

Technically an annullment is a finding that the first marriage was not valid. In other words there was no first marriage. Of course, second marriages are allowed if your first spouse is dead.

There's always been a debate about whether Mary was a virgin AFTER Jesus was born. I don't think any official Christian church disputes that Mary was a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born, as that's exactly what the 3 synoptic gospels say, in unequivocable terms.

Only Matthew and Luke have stories about the birth of Christ. Mark is silent about his conception and birth, but the virgin birth is affirmed in the Nicene creed.

[Xiahou]

Technically an annullment is a finding that the first marriage was not valid. In other words there was no first marriage. Of course, second marriages are allowed if your first spouse is dead.

Exactly. Marriage after an annulment isn't a second marriage since the first marriage never happened. The only way to get married twice in the Church is if your first spouse dies.

[doc_bean]

Not sure how you can almost have a condom machine, but this would certainly not happen in England.

Well, they debated whether or not to install one. I believe the student council was against it in the end (don't know about the parent council, teachers and whatnot). Arguing that if you're not mature enough to buy them in the supermarket, you shouldn't have sex.

I think there's probably a huge difference between how the church acts in countries where it is the dominant religion and countries where it isn't.

Can't give you the citations, sorry, it was just stuff in the local news.

[Ignoramus]

Maybe someone here could clarify something for me. Where in the NT does it state that homosexuality is a no-no? It's been quite some time since I read the bible but I don't recall Jesus ever saying that homosexuals are an abomination. Just wondering who decided they were, if Jesus did not.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Not the New Testament, but the Old Testament is equally important and true as the New Testament.

I think it is horrible that Christians in general are being "legislated" against. Supposing you, as a Christian, want to put your child up for adoption(for whatever reason, let's say that you can't support the child anyone for example), and a homosexual couple applies to adopt the child. Would you be horrified that you couldn't refuse them to adopt your child? I'd be horrified. The UK says that it has religious freedom, yet it forces Christians to act against their beliefs.

If I was living in the UK, I would not obey that law. It is wrong. Just like here in Victoria, Australia. We are being told that we are not allowed to say something that may "vilify" another religion. I attended a seminar on Islam recently, and I had to sign that I was a Christian to prevent Muslims coming in and suing the speaker for giving an informed view about Islam. It is a disgrace that Western society has sunk this low.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think it is horrible that Christians in general are being "legislated" against. Supposing you, as a Christian, want to put your child up for adoption(for whatever reason, let's say that you can't support the child anyone for example), and a homosexual couple applies to adopt the child. Would you be horrified that you couldn't refuse them to adopt your child? I'd be horrified. The UK says that it has religious freedom, yet it forces Christians to act against their beliefs.

I'm not at all sure that this represents legislation "against" Christians, but for the rights of all. I appreciate that you believe strongly that your faith is the only true one, but not everyone agrees with you. Remember, in the UK Roman Catholics are still sub-class citizens under the Act of Settlement, and the Equality Act should help them too. (Anyone want to bet on a challenge to the Act of Settlement in the near future?)

I'm also confused as to why a person giving up their child for adoption should have a great deal of say in who that child is adopted by. Surely if one believes so strongly that one's child should be brought up a Christian, one should bring it up oneself? I appreciate that life is harsh and sometimes this is not possible, but I don't know that any public adoption agencies are bound by the requirements of the natural parents as to who may adopt. I'd be interested in examples where this was the case.

One interesting aspect of this case is that it appears to be characteristic of Tony Blair's strange way of governing. Ruth Kelly is the minister for equality, responsible for the Equality Act that is at the centre of this row.

Mrs Kelly is apparently a member of Opus Dei and well-known for her robust catholic faith. Her voting record shows that she has studiously avoided all votes on matters contentious to her faith, such as abortion, school sex education, homosexual rights and suchlike.

Good for her. I'm not a fan of religious influence in government, but I can't deny someone with strong convictions and faith is usually a good influence amongst the usual venial corruptions in politics. As a backbencher, this is a good contribution, though perhaps one would have preferred to see her present at debates to present a view.

However, for the Prime Minister to then appoint this woman to the post of Minister for Equality (a ministry he created) where her explicit portfolio is to address the very issues she has so assidiously avoided (let's not note her run as Education Secretary) seems to me perverse to the extreme. For her to accept the post, knowing that she could not in conscience deliver to the requirements of the post, seems also to be perverse.

Having a Ministry for Equality in itself is a whole new thread, but if you're going to have one, why set its minister up for failure?

[InsaneApache]

Having a Ministry for Equality in itself is a whole new thread, but if you're going to have one, why set its minister up for failure?

It's called joined up government. Every other department is failing. Home office, DEFRA, MOD, education, NHS. So it's only logical that Tony would screw this up as well. After all he's had ten years practise.

He's like a sort of reverse King Midas, except everything he touches turns to lead.

[rory_20_uk]

Setting upa Ministry where the peron in charge wants to do nothing is perfect modern politics. Tony doesn't want to do anything, but can't be seen to beo doing nothing. By placing someone who has a track record of not doing anything he's making a song and dance whilst nothing really changes.

When the wind blows elsewhere (possibly thanks to another campaign or news story) the ministry can be either dropped be amalgamated or contine in its present pointless state.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm also confused as to why a person giving up their child for adoption should have a great deal of say in who that child is adopted by. Surely if one believes so strongly that one's child should be brought up a Christian, one should bring it up oneself?

This is one case where I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, BG. Adoption is probably one of the world's best alternatives to abortion. For prospective parents who know they are not in a position to take care of their child, but still want that child to have the opportunity of a good life, this is a great sacrifice and an act of love. I think they have every right to try to find their child the kind of upbringing they would have given it if they could.

Ajax

[Slyspy]

I should point out to BG that whatever our laws from yester-year may say Catholics are in practice not actually sub-class citizens. In fact I rather resent the suggestion that they are treated as such.

Edit:

PM has said that there will be no exceptions to the rules.

[rory_20_uk]

This is one case where I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, BG. Adoption is probably one of the world's best alternatives to abortion. For prospective parents who know they are not in a position to take care of their child, but still want that child to have the opportunity of a good life, this is a great sacrifice and an act of love. I think they have every right to try to find their child the kind of upbringing they would have given it if they could.

Ajax

Hmm. They were irrisponsible enough to get pregnant, but have sufficient morals to demand a specific family for their unwanted child. They can't be bothered to find a family themselves, so need an agency that they can dump the child on to sort it all out...

Sorry. Talk some responsibility for your own life - or pull your finger out and make that "perfect" family that you apparently feel unable / unwilling to recreate.