View Full Version : Catholics crucify homosexuals?
It was reported in Scotland on Sunday this morning that the Scottish Executive are in talks with Westminster in the hope of allowing The catholic church in Scotland a concession against the recently passed law at Westminster which prohibits all adoption agencies from discriminating against homosexual couples in their desire to adopt chuildren.
The Westminster law allows catholic adoption agencies until 2008 to get their act together and stop discriminating against homosexuals when they place the children in their care.
Should the catholic church in Scotland be allowed this concession to continue discriminating against homesexuals and therefore become immune from prosecution whilst everyone else will have to abide by the law?
My own thoughts are mixed. Over the years I have become more used to the idea that gay relationships are as normal as hetreosexual relationships. The church however has a set of rules drawn up over 2000 years ago which determines how its followers should think about such matters.
One catholic bishop complains that the new law is a sinister attack on the churches values. Whilst I dont agree there's anything sinister in fighting discrimination I do believe he has a point about this being an attack on the churches values and he is right to fight it.
Should the church realign its values with modern day thinking?
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 13:27
the christian bible and god says [that homosexuals are detestable in his sight] do u know that it is far far harder for a single strait person to adopt a child than two homosexuals or lesbians:eek:
I'm no expert on religion but to my mind, some churches have already realigned their values to suit modern times and this I agree with.
If we were to adhere strictly to the laws of any church, there are a lot of people out there who claim they are Christians who need to take a good look at their lifestyles.
Where does any religion draw the line? As far as I recall, simple things like covering ones head whilst in church no longer seems to apply and yet it is so easy to do so.
The precedence of allowing a religion to break the law has already been allowed; where does it stop?
Why is it ok to bend some laws to suit a religion and yet allowable to discriminate vastly against a particular section of society. Let's face it, homosexuals exist; they have always existed and will always exist and no amount of discrimination will make them go away.
I like to think that "society", however it is defined, will someday let man exist without judging. After all, "he who is without sin...."
Homosexuality is a fact of life; it exists; it causes no harm to anyone any more than any other faction of society and yes, I know some will come back at me about the gay festivals etc., and shoving it in our faces but maybe if we were more readily accepting of our fellow man it would not be rejected as being abhorrent.
According to the bible, God made man in his own image and, if we accept the bible, we can't argue with that.
Actually the bible says: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). Baring insuitability to become a parent (ie: violence against children oranyone, or being incapable to adaquately care for a child), the very bible defends we are all equal under God. Catholic religion is based on the bible and this is in the bible.
Yes, I know that on another page it describes homosexuality as an abomination. But there are many things that cannot be looked upon with critical eyes in our day and age:
-Subjugation of women
-supports slavery
-condones genocide
-stoning of adulterers
-killing of disobedient children
-not partaking of unclean food: pork and sea food for example
The list goes on and on..... but the point is that the bible cannot be taken factually and literaly. It is out of it's contextual time. A homosexual person, apt to become a good parent and willing to give a child a loving, caring and stable home, thus removing the child from care (which we all know does such a good job by the children they care for) has to be given the chance to do it.
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 14:47
The Catholic church is right to want to maintain it's position of not allowing homosexual adoption. Whereas I am slightly more relaxed about two women providing homes for children in need - they could,all things being equal - after all have their own kids if
they really wanted to - it can never be natural for two men to act as adoptive parents.
I don't think I could ever be convinced otherwise that placing small children in such close domestic proximity to male homosexuals is a step too far.
A significant proportion of these people, and their friends are promiscuous, obssessed with their own 'sexuality' keen to celebrate it often and glory in the progress made at mainstreaming their affliction. A totally inappropriate atmosphere in which to raise kids of either gender.
For the others amongst them who happily realise they were never meant to have children, and go about living their 'gay' lives decently and quietly, without wishing to impose the condition on others, or to claim it is 'normal' I have only good wishes.
There is far too much talk of 'homosexual rights' and other minority groups.The majority are going to the wall in all manner of ways while such diversions and focus groups seem to grip the news agenda.
A loving Mum & Dad = best
A loving Mum or Dad = second best
Mum & Mum = third best
Care home = make them better
Dad & Dad = No way.
j4bberw0ck
25-Feb-07, 14:53
I'd be interested to know what the reaction would be were we talking Muslim adoption agencies..... yes, I know there's no such thing in a practical sense, but would they get an exemption from having to deal with homosexual couples?
Actually, I think the issue wider than the Church's attitude to homosexuals. It's a freedom of speech issue. Seems to me that Catholic adoption agencies wouldn't be the first port of call for homosexual couples anyway; if agencies don't want to deal with homosexuals because of their religious conviction, why shouldn't they have that right of belief? It's not as though the point at issue is whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt at all. Sooner or later the agencies would drop out of the market but would be able to do it in a controlled way rather than just ditching the whole project overnight putting good and wholly well-intentioned people out of jobs, and more importantly prejudicing the interests of the children.
Part of the problem in the world today is that we're moving towards a society in which it isn't permitted to believe anything which isn't approved of by government or the majority; so at the end of June this year it'll be possible for a magistrate in an EU country to sign a warrant for your extradition if you say something publicly that in the eyes solely of the magistrate, qualifies as xenophobia. Northern Constabulary will have no option other than to arrest you and put you on a flight to <whichever country> where you'll be transported to jail to await an audience with the magistrate - in his own time. Regardless of your job, or livelihood, or family.
And no, I'm not kidding. This is real. By 30 June 2007 the UK must under EU law enact the Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia.
What's xenophobia? Where does one draw the line? At a football match, you shout something about the French referee? You crack a joke about Germans? Thank heavens the USA isn't in the EU or Fred would be away to join some ex-NatWest bankers in the slammer somewhere.
During the German Presidency of the EU, laws will be passed to outlaw Holocaust denial. Completely unnecessary, really, when you consider what an idiot the "historian" David Irving ended up looking like. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't remember and condemn, but forbidding people to think things is a terribly dangerous precedent.
Ask any of the 5 million or so purged by Stalin.
"A significant proportion of these people, and their friends are promiscuous, obssessed with their own 'sexuality' keen to celebrate it often and glory in the progress made at mainstreaming their affliction. A totally inappropriate atmosphere in which to raise kids of either gender."
And of course PT, all heterosexual parents are as depicted in childrens' books!
Mummy and Daddy and the little ones all living wholesome lives with Mummy wearing an apron and looking after the rest; Daddy going out to work and bringing home the pay packet and then both parents spending lots of time teaching the children right from wrong, playing with them and tucking them up all soundly at seven o'clock to sleep the sleep of the just.
Sorry PT but I can assure you that homosexual parents can be good parents as well. Loving and caring and doing their best for the children as well as any heterosexual ones.
There is good and bad in all sections of society as we all know, and many more are grey areas; in fact most of them in my opinion.
surely its better for kids to go to a home in which the parents love them and will look after them than being in care. so what if its 2 mummies or 2 daddies surely the point is that a kid will be given a home and be loved by them regardless of their gender.
i dont usually get involved in thie type of issue as i dont believe in any kind of homosexual relationships. i was brought up in an era where homosexuality was illegal and i still firmly believe it should be and there is no way on earth that anyone will convince me otherwise. however i also believe in live and let live,so long as it does not affect me they can can do whatever they like within the confines of their own home. how ever if one of my chidren came home and said to me dad im gay i would not like it but i guess i ,d have to live with it somehow. on the word gay, i was also brought up to believe that this word meant happy & carefree how did it get mixed up with homosexuality . on the subject of GAYS adopting kids this is another thing that i am uncomfortable with, a child growing up in this atmosphere at a tender age how are they going to cope with having a mum & a mum dad or a dad & a dad mum . ok im old fashioned and probably a relic but i relish old values & old virtues .
i will likely get some backlash over this but that is my views and thats it if you dont like it ,to bad i wont change and i will not change i think it,s immoral and thats that. A hotelier on the west coast got into a bit of bother for refusing to let a room to two homosexual men, now i think he is well within his rights to refuse to put up with ANYTHING that is against his own beliefs.
"A significant proportion of these people, and their friends are promiscuous, obssessed with their own 'sexuality' keen to celebrate it often and glory in the progress made at mainstreaming their affliction. A totally inappropriate atmosphere in which to raise kids of either gender."
Sorry PT but I can assure you that homosexual parents can be good parents as well. Loving and caring and doing their best for the children as well as any heterosexual ones.
There is good and bad in all sections of society as we all know, and many more are grey areas; in fact most of them in my opinion.
I couldn't agree more with Torvaig.
And as far as I am concerned the law is the law, and there should be no exceptions. I doubt very much that gay couples wishing to adopt would go to a catholic adoption agency anyway.
Resistance against the acceptance of homosexuality and the extension of full civil rights to homosexual people is, and always has been, lead by religious groups.
The Christian Church's attitude toward human sexuality has always been very negative: sex was for procreation, not for pleasure; women and slaves were considered property to be owned by males; and many expressions of heterosexuality, like homosexuality, were considered sinful. Such tradition often continues to influence churches today. Many teach that women should be subordinate to men, continue to permit forms of discrimination against peoples of colour, and condemn homosexuals. They say that all homosexual acts are sinful, often referring to their interpretation of scripture.
Why don't you ask yourself 'Would Jesus discriminate?'
I do not think he would. Yet we live in a time when many churches are leading the effort to deny gay people equal rights and equal protection under the law.
One of the themes of Jesus' ministry was a recurring conflict with the Pharisees, a powerful group of legalistic religious leaders. The list of people despised by the Pharisees was long. Jesus emphatically rejected each one of these prejudices.
Jesus refused to be bound by cultural prejudice. Repeatedly, he took up the cause of the oppressed and defended them against narrow-minded religious leaders.
Unfortunately, the Church has often failed to live up to Jesus' example. Too often they misuse the Bible to justify discrimination, acting more like Pharisees than followers of Jesus.
Homosexuality is not synonymous of pedofilia, promiscuity, or perversion. Being a homosexual does not mean you autyomatically inflict your sexuality on a child, just as being heterosexual doesn't. Being a good parent has nothing to do with your sexual choices and everything to do with being strong for your child and teaching them to be true to themselves and others. As a mother, my son will not be "exposed" to my sexuality. I am absolutely certain that a homosexual mum or dad thinks exactly the same way. Do not confuse affection with sexuality.
As for catholic adoption agencies being the last port of call for homosexuals, that is technically not true, because theses agencies tend to have the most difficult children to place: children who are older, ill or suffered abuse. The reality is that a family unit of mum and dad will always get priority in adoption, as it should be, so the single parents and homosexuals will often look at those children who are problematic in some way and that are often in these types of agency.
I think it is far preferable for a child to have one or two loving fathers that give him/her the life they deserve than to be institutionalised till the age of 16/18 when they are thrown out into the world alone.
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 16:17
People should be free to live up to their own values system, of course, as long as those values are within the confines of our legal system. My personal value system might allow for wanton violence against fellow humans, however our legal system disallows that unless its in self-defence. We all need to confirm to the principles set down by the society in which we live, or face the consequences.
The catholic church needs to face up to the fact that its policy of discriminating against homosexuals is against the law. Period.
What is the issue anyways? Homosexual doesn't mean pedophile after all, nor is homosexuality contagious (anymore than heterosexuality is!) I have no problem with any child being brought up in a loving home, whether that home is run by two married parents, a single parent, one or two aunts, or one or two uncles, whether biologically related or not...so why should sexual orientation (except pedophilia, of course) be a factor?
Heck, the thought of my parents (one of each sex, by the way) having sexual relations with each other was not a concept I ever cared to consider...ewww!...as far as I was concerned, they were eunuchs, and I was hatched! I doubt it would be any different for children raised by homosexuals...we just don't see our parents in that way.
oh, and PT? with respect to your "mom & dad okay" table? What if one of the "dads" was the biological father? Would you deny him the right to raise his own child? Get a grip.
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 16:20
what a sad time we r living in, and a desperate time for kids. when a child asks his two homosexual daddies,[how do homosexuals peform sex? the very thought makes me sick.:eek:
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 16:25
what a sad time we r living in, and a desperate time for kids. when a child asks his two homosexual daddies,[how do homosexuals peform sex? the very thought makes me sick.:eek:
Laff..."the talk" is a conversation that ANY parent, hetero- or homosexual, dreads! but we all get through it.
Don't you think that a homosexual would be just as capable of explaining the mechanics of hetro-sexual relations as a heterosexual would be of explaining how homosexuals do it? Puhleeze!
what a sad time we r living in, and a desperate time for kids. when a child asks his two homosexual daddies,[how do homosexuals peform sex? the very thought makes me sick.:eek:
with you 100% on that caithness lad [disgust]
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 16:31
Laff..."the talk" is a conversation that ANY parent, hetero- or homosexual, dreads! but we all get through it.
Don't you think that a homosexual would be just as capable of explaining the mechanics of hetro-sexual relations as a heterosexual would be of explaining how homosexuals do it? Puhleeze!hi! no. what im saying is. and for obvious reasons cant be to graphic, is[the filthy way way of the homosexual sexual act]i find it sickening and perverse. what must a child feel?
Whitewater
25-Feb-07, 16:42
Nothing against gay people of either sex, I have several 'gay' friends and have found them to be very good and caring people. Some time ago when 'Gay' marriages were hitting the headlines, I asked what they thought about it. "Nonesence" was their replies, and as far as adopting children was concerned it was another emphatic 'No', and I find myself agreeing with them. They all claimed it was just publicity seeking individuals who were making the fuss, and did not reflect the true views of the majority of Gay people.
I'm with 'caithness lad' on this.
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 16:42
hi! no. what im saying is. and for obvious reasons cant be to graphic, is[the filthy way way of the homosexual sexual act]i find it sickening and perverse. what must a child feel?
probably no worse than any girl feels, when they find out the facts of life. Think about it..."You want to put *that* WHERE????"
When you break it down into the mechanics, any sexual act is just weird...like wanting to pick someone else's nose. And once you try it, you may just find its not as bad/sickening/perverse as you envisioned.
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 16:50
probably no worse than any girl feels, when they find out the facts of life. Think about it..."You want to put *that* WHERE????"
When you break it down into the mechanics, any sexual act is just weird...like wanting to pick someone else's nose. And once you try it, you may just find its not as bad/sickening/perverse as you envisioned.the sexual act of man and woman is a perfict natural act, and as a child developes in all departments of growth will embrace this wonderful loveing act between man and woman.the homosexual sexual act is not natural. it is pure filth.
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 16:55
the sexual act of man and woman is a perfict natural act, and as a child developes in all departments of growth will embrace this wonderful loveing act between man and woman.the homosexual sexual act is not natural. it is pure filth.
Any loving act is natural, wonderful and good. Some may not be to your taste, but in that you are no different from anyone else, homo or heterosexual.
Finding out about the mechanics of sex, however, isn't necessarily so wonderful.
How would you feel if you were told that, some day, you'd let some guy put the thing where he urinates inside YOUR body, and this is normal...sorry, if you are squeamish (and it sounds like you are) then it is really offputting.
as for the "filthiness" of the other habit, there are precautions and methods that minimize this, as there are for the heterosexual act. Without getting too graphic of course.
the sexual act of man and woman is a perfict natural act, and as a child developes in all departments of growth will embrace this wonderful loveing act between man and woman.the homosexual sexual act is not natural. it is pure filth.
I would be interested to hear/read your definition of “natural” Caithness Lad. The sexual act occurs amongst partners of the same sex throughout the natural World, so that kind of works against your statement. You may find the act unpalatable and at odds with your moral standards – but I don’t think you can say it is not natural.
In response to Whitewaters conversation with his gay friends its not unusual for homosexuals to feel the same revulsion towards themselves as so called normal people feel towards them. They were after all brought up in the same society that produced people like caithnesslad.
This is not about the mechanics of homosexuality. Most normal people dont think about that side of things. Thats a phobia and like any phobia it will bring on extreme opinions from its sufferers. Its a perfectly legal activity and needs no defence.
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 17:05
oh, and PT? with respect to your "mom & dad okay" table? What if one of the "dads" was the biological father? Would you deny him the right to raise his own child? Get a grip.
Get a grip yourself.
If a man is fathering children with women he is not homosexual by it's very definition. If the child became the subject of a custody battle between it's attentive natural mother and it's bi-sexual father - who was now living with another man - then any judge that handed the child over to the father should be certified.
If the mother is dead, or absent then there would be no need of 'adoption' would there??? All you would have would be a motherless child in the 'care' of a bent bloke and bi-sexual. Social services should be calling frequently.
I am not sugggesting all homosexuals are paedophiles (might as well spell it right girls) but as the huge majority of offenders are male & the proportion of young boys 'interfered' with as opposed to girls does suggest that for some it is a predilection. Given the male instinct toward opportunism and ally it with a preference for same sex couplings then it is a factor which needs protecting against. I've been in the vicinity of too many examples of sexual opportunism between male homo's to know many are far from fussy, or much concerned about consequences.
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 17:14
I don't think its normal for homosexuals to feel revulsion against themselves. All the gay friends I have, albeit in Toronto, are quite happy in their orientation and can easily dismiss the views of close-minded people who don't like their way of life. A couple are raising children, and there's not too much difficulty. Not too much different from my heterosexual friends.
Mind you, it does take a certain maturity of mind to be able to handle that kind of lifestyle choice with grace and dignity. I'm not sure I'd be able to cope, certainly not in Britian. They tend to be a bit violent here towards people they find unacceptable, whether its because of orientation or nationality, or colour of skin.
I am not sugggesting all homosexuals are paedophiles (might as well spell it right girls) but as the huge majority of offenders are male & the proportion of young boys 'interfered' with as opposed to girls does suggest that for some it is a predilection. Given the male instinct toward opportunism and ally it with a preference for same sex couplings then it is a factor which needs protecting against. I've been in the vicinity of too many examples of sexual opportunism between male homo's to know many are far from fussy, or much concerned about consequences.
If the majority of paedophiles are male, then that includes heterosexual men. Therefore it could also be argued that straight men should not be allowed to adopt children either, because all men are predators!
Hmmm, I have a case of deja vu here because I've used this counter argument on this very subject on here before.
j4bberw0ck
25-Feb-07, 17:16
It was reported in Scotland on Sunday this morning that the Scottish Executive are in talks with Westminster in the hope of allowing The catholic church in Scotland a concession against the recently passed law at Westminster which prohibits all adoption agencies from discriminating against homosexual couples in their desire to adopt chuildren.
Should the church realign its values with modern day thinking?
Just to pull this away from a debate about sexual mechanics :lol: and trying to answer the question, I would ask why the Church should try to realign its values with modern day thinking. Assuming the question relates only to the business of homosexuals and adoption, why should it, when exemptions to the law in question already include:
House of Commons
House of Lords
Anyone acting on their authorities
The Secret Services
Secret Intelligence Services
GCHQ
Anyone in the Armed Forces assisting GCHQ.
Why them, and not a faith-based institution like the Catholic Church? Are the legislators saying that gays can't be trusted? Evidently they are - they can be blackmailed of their dirty little secrets..... sounds like religious discrimination to me, combined with a nasty sneaking distrust of a perfectly respectable sector of society...... to the streets! At once! Burn effigies! Wave offensive banners!
Lots of laws have exceptions and exemptions:
- MPs are exempt now from many provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
- Sikhs are exempt from wearing helmets while on a motorcycle.
- Judges are exempt from the provisions of the Pensions Act which put a cap on lifetime pensions contributions.
- MEPs are exempt from European tax law and have their own set of (very generous) tax rules.
I'm sure a few minutes on Google could find a lot more. So. Why not the Catholic Church? It's highly unlikely to inconvenience gay adoption at all.
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 17:19
Any loving act is natural, wonderful and good. Some may not be to your taste, but in that you are no different from anyone else, homo or heterosexual.
Finding out about the mechanics of sex, however, isn't necessarily so wonderful.
How would you feel if you were told that, some day, you'd let some guy put the thing where he urinates inside YOUR body, and this is normal...sorry, if you are squeamish (and it sounds like you are) then it is really offputting.
as for the "filthiness" of the other habit, there are precautions and methods that minimize this, as there are for the heterosexual act. Without getting too graphic of course.hi! i think we must agree to disagree. my first concern is for our children not to be put through such an ordeal as to hear of the homosexual sexual act. i am far from having a week stomach and accept that homosexuality is part of life. i am a christian not a catholic. but i am 100% behind the catholic stand on homosexuality and as i said before. its filth.[up the back passage] pure filth.
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 17:20
Mind you, it does take a certain maturity of mind to be able to handle that kind of lifestyle choice with grace and dignity. I'm not sure I'd be able to cope, certainly not in Britian. They tend to be a bit violent here towards people they find unacceptable, whether its because of orientation or nationality, or colour of skin.
What complete and utter nonsense. The people of Britain have become so tolerant they now border on the completely acquiescent. Like a dog rolling over and waving it's legs in the air in submission to any passing minority, any lunatic fringe shouting loudly enough.
The 'grace and dignity' you speak of should be a hallmark of the male homosexual in accepting he was not intended to have children because that's the way nature made him. If he's a lifestyle choice homosexual, or cannot relate well enough to women to persuade them into a sexual relationship then his very modus operandi should exclude him from adopting youngsters.
j4bberw0ck
25-Feb-07, 17:20
If a man is fathering children with women he is not homosexual by it's very definition. If the child became the subject of a custody battle between it's attentive natural mother and it's bi-sexual father - who was now living with another man - then any judge that handed the child over to the father should be certified.
Percy, Percy, Percy........ that's possibly the most laughably, ignorant, ridiculous thing I've read all week. And believe me I've seen some ridiculous stuff this week.
<edit> Oh heavens above. Now he wants to make sure homosexuals are sterile so they can't reproduce. Now, who does this remind me of? Hmmmmmmm.... I'm sure I'll think of it shortly. </edit>
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 17:23
I would be interested to hear/read your definition of “natural” Caithness Lad. The sexual act occurs amongst partners of the same sex throughout the natural World, so that kind of works against your statement. You may find the act unpalatable and at odds with your moral standards – but I don’t think you can say it is not natural.
It is not normal, nor is it natural. Tissue tearing and bleeding testify to this.When things go where they are designed to go nature usually facilitates things without resort to petrochemically based lubricants.
So, neither normal, nor natural it is therefore a perversion. A mild one which must be enjoyable or people wouldn't do it would they?
I'm just relieved it's not compulsory.
p.s. I do believe homosexual love/attraction is often natural, though not normal.
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 17:25
hi! i think we must agree to disagree. my first concern is for our children not to be put through such an ordeal as to hear of the homosexual sexual act. i am far from having a week stomach and accept that homosexuality is part of life. i am a christian not a catholic. but i am 100% behind the catholic stand on homosexuality and as i said before. its filth.[up the back passage] pure filth.
so if they agreed just to have oral sex it would be okay? What about hugging...is hugging okay?
I appreciate what you say, that the activity isn't to your taste, but your revulsion for the act shouldn't negate the fact that they are people too, and deserve the same rights as others.
j4bberw0ck
25-Feb-07, 17:26
I'm just relieved it's not compulsory.
I imagine that listening to you, a lot of gay men share your relief that they're safe from you :lol:.
Now, I must go do something fascinating. Vacuum the lounge..... :roll:
the sexual act of man and woman is a perfict natural act, and as a child developes in all departments of growth will embrace this wonderful loveing act between man and woman.the homosexual sexual act is not natural. it is pure filth.
Untill a couple of 100 years ago the sexual act between a man and woman was also filthy, only being contemplated for procreation. It's existance was due to the original sin of Adam and Eve.
As for anti-natura, there are MANY instances of homosexuality ocurring in nature....in higher mamals I might add. It is a natural part of the growth in male dolphins, for example!
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 17:27
I would be interested to hear/read your definition of “natural” Caithness Lad. The sexual act occurs amongst partners of the same sex throughout the natural World, so that kind of works against your statement. You may find the act unpalatable and at odds with your moral standards – but I don’t think you can say it is not natural.hi! my definition of not natural is to have the male sexual organ stuck up inside the male back passage. we r the most developed of creation we should know natural fom which is not natural.
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 17:29
It is not normal, nor is it natural. Tissue tearing and bleeding testify to this.When things go where they are designed to go nature usually facilitates things without resort to petrochemically based lubricants.
So, neither normal, nor natural it is therefore a perversion. A mild one which must be enjoyable or people wouldn't do it would they?
I'm just relieved it's not compulsory.
p.s. I do believe homosexual love/attraction is often natural, though not normal.
PT, you can have tissue tearing and bleeding during heterosexual sex too...if its done thoughtlessly or if the two partners aren't well matched physically. By this definition heterosexual sex is a perversion as well.
Resorting to lubricants? ever been in an Ann Summers shop? Again, normal to heterosexual couples as well...
and...its not compulsory either...
If we accept that the act is not natural (which I disagree with), does your argument follow that everything that is not natural is bad and should not be encouraged?
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 17:35
Untill a couple of 100 years ago the sexual act between a man and woman was also filthy, only being contemplated for procreation. It's existance was due to the original sin of Adam and Eve.
As for anti-natura, there are MANY instances of homosexuality ocurring in nature....in higher mamals I might add. It is a natural part of the growth in male dolphins, for example!sorry dont know much about dolphins etc. [god said to man go fourth and multiply]how can humans multiply by the unatural homosexual act[ detestable in my sight r homosexuals says god]
hi! my definition of not natural is to have the male sexual organ stuck up inside the male back passage. we r the most developed of creation we should know natural fom which is not natural.
So what about anal sex if it is male on female?
As for your last sentence, I agree which is why I asked for your definition;)
the christian bible and god says [that homosexuals are detestable in his sight] do u know that it is far far harder for a single strait person to adopt a child than two homosexuals or lesbians:eek:
I have been looking for the section where Jesus says that. Do you have the verse and chapter?
Thanks
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 17:41
so if they agreed just to have oral sex it would be okay? What about hugging...is hugging okay?
I appreciate what you say, that the activity isn't to your taste, but your revulsion for the act shouldn't negate the fact that they are people too, and deserve the same rights as others.hi! i think that revulsion of the act is an under statemeant of how i feel of the homosexual sexual act and its threat to our children. oral sex included.
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 17:44
So what about anal sex if it is male on female?
As for your last sentence, I agree which is why I asked for your definition;)hi! the thread is catholics crucify homosexuals. not man and woman relationships.
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 17:47
hi! i think that revulsion of the act is an under statemeant of how i feel of the homosexual sexual act and its threat to our children. oral sex included.
If a homosexual is not a paedophile (spelling noted!), then there is no threat to our children.
I don't know the statistics, but paedophiles are not restricted to the homosexual population by any means! Nor are rapists for that matter.
But, I get it...you find homosexuality repulsive, and cannot see the people behind the act. That reflects worse on you than it does on them.
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 17:55
What complete and utter nonsense. The people of Britain have become so tolerant they now border on the completely acquiescent. Like a dog rolling over and waving it's legs in the air in submission to any passing minority, any lunatic fringe shouting loudly enough.
The 'grace and dignity' you speak of should be a hallmark of the male homosexual in accepting he was not intended to have children because that's the way nature made him. If he's a lifestyle choice homosexual, or cannot relate well enough to women to persuade them into a sexual relationship then his very modus operandi should exclude him from adopting youngsters.
It takes grace and dignity to be able to hear comments and opinions like those expressed by yourself and CL, and to maintain a calm and happy demeanour. I couldn't do it.
As for accepting that one cannot have children, the inability to have children is why anyone attempts to adopt. Sometimes its a lifestyle choice, other times its because "thats the way nature made them". would you have every person who could not have a child of their own accept that fact and not attempt to adopt???? because that's the way they were made??? No adoptions would take place at all. Why should a homosexual be expected to accept that but not a single woman?
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 17:56
If a homosexual is not a paedophile (spelling noted!), then there is no threat to our children.
I don't know the statistics, but paedophiles are not restricted to the homosexual population by any means! Nor are rapists for that matter.
But, I get it...you find homosexuality repulsive, and cannot see the people behind the act. That reflects worse on you than it does on them.hi! we do disagree on this.the homosexual act is unatural and perverse and holds as much a threat as pheadophiles to our children[ they polute our childrens minds saying oh its natural. its a cancer in our world today and must again be made illegal, for the future of our world.
sorry dont know much about dolphins etc. [god said to man go fourth and multiply]how can humans multiply by the unatural homosexual act[ detestable in my sight r homosexuals says god]
I can't recall your Biblical quote? Care to provide a reference? There are of course a number which can be used to further your argument, which I am familiar with.........think there could be a wee spelling mistake in Gen 1:28...nice to find someone who lives by the book.........or do you only live by the bits that you agree with?
hi! the thread is catholics crucify homosexuals. not man and woman relationships.
It was you who provided your definition of unnatural - I was trying to clarify it. However I know see that is futile, a very clever man once told me you cannot debate with an idiot.........how true he was.
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 18:00
I can't recall your Biblical quote? Care to provide a reference? There are of course a number which can be used to further your argument, which I am familiar with.........think there could be a wee spelling mistake in Gen 1:28...nice to find someone who lives by the book.........or do you only live by the bits that you agree with?hi! scotsboy. i will reply when i find my bible concordence. lets stick to the thread and not what i agree with or dont in the bible.
That would be much safer for you;)
hi! scotsboy. i will reply when i find my bible concordence. lets stick to the thread and not what i agree with or dont in the bible.
Maybe I missed something but I thought the bases of you argument was this quote from the Bible?
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 18:04
[quote=rockchick;194880]It takes grace and dignity to be able to hear comments and opinions like those expressed by yourself and CL, and to maintain a calm and happy demeanour. I couldn't do it.
quote]
Please do not lump me in with a bible basher. My thoughts are all my own, and not instigated by creed, or articles of faith.
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 18:09
Maybe I missed something but I thought the bases of you argument was this quote from the Bible?no i was simply replying to a quote. the thread is[catholics crucify homosexuals] i will answer what the bible says about practicing homosexuals when i look up the concordance.
Personally I think that one set of people insisting that their own beliefs should dominate the beliefs of all others and that everybody should be forced to accept them is wrong and is totally unacceptable in a Free Society. Whoever such people are they are nothing less than Bigots and such Bigotry should be put an end to.
To insist that anybody should be tolerant when those doing the insisting refuse to be tolerant themselves says an awful lot about their hypocrisy and their beliefs in any sort of freedom.
Such attitudes can only be described as the "Freedoms of Dictators” and nothing less.
rockchick
25-Feb-07, 18:10
[quote=rockchick;194880]It takes grace and dignity to be able to hear comments and opinions like those expressed by yourself and CL, and to maintain a calm and happy demeanour. I couldn't do it.
quote]
Please do not lump me in with a bible basher. My thoughts are all my own, and not instigated by creed, or articles of faith.
Intolerance sounds the same on the receiving end, whatever the motivation. Nor did I accuse anyone of being a bible thumper.
I would find the homosexual sex act disgusting if I was expected to participate, just as I would find the act of a female defacating or urinating on me disgusting.
I do not wish to participate in any of the forgoing activities but I do not think that it is any of my business if anyone does wish to, subject to it being undertaken discretely, in privacy and causing no harm to anyone.
I have no wish to deny anyone the right to pursue their sexual proclivities but what I do object to is the way that these things are emblazoned in the media by certain individuals.
I think that "Gay Rights" marches look ridiculous and do nothing to enhance the cause of gay people in my eyes. I also find people like Julian Clary objectionable with his "I'm gay so you better deal with it" attitude. There are many gay people who manage to combine their sexuality with day to day routine without resorting to waving their sexuality all over the place.
The Civil Agreement being hijacked as a "Gay Marriage" is another source of ire for me. (It is also discriminatory but that's another argument).
There is a "Gay Spokesman" (Spokesperson?) whose name I can't recall at the moment, who is trotted out by the media at every opportunity to give his somewhat predictable opinions on some matter or other that is deemed to impinge on the gay world. This guy annoys me intensly as he brooks no argument and everything is designed to suppress "Gay Rights" (in his opininon).
I have come into contact with many gay men during my working life and in the main have found them perfectly acceptable social companions and workmates so I have nothing against gays per se, but I do not feel that they should be allowed to adopt as a male/male couple and the Catholic Church should be allowed an exemption.
Dusty.
Gleeber, when are there "Crucifixions" supposed to be taking place? I thought the Death Penalty had been abolished under the European Convention of Human Rights to which Britain is a signatory!
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 18:27
[quote=percy toboggan;194892]
Intolerance sounds the same on the receiving end, whatever the motivation. Nor did I accuse anyone of being a bible thumper.
No, that was me.
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 18:44
I can't recall your Biblical quote? Care to provide a reference? There are of course a number which can be used to further your argument, which I am familiar with.........think there could be a wee spelling mistake in Gen 1:28...nice to find someone who lives by the book.........or do you only live by the bits that you agree with?hi! reference is [leviticus chapter18 verse 22]
People are people - I cant see that what they do int he bedroom actually makes a difference to their capacity to bring up a child..
I have a friend who is mixed race. She was born in Ghana, her father was white and english her mother was a tribal woman. Her father sent her to a catholic mission to be looked after when she was little more than a toddler. The nuns at the mission beat her because of her parentage, they left scars on her back that she still has. When her father found this out he removed her from the mission and sent her to live with his batchelor brother in Oldham. She was five and looking back on the situation he was clearly homosexual. Ray loved that child. He brought her up until she was 11, he cared for her,introduced her to his friends, brought her up, gave her a loving, warm and caring home where we as her friends were always welcomed and never felt like it was a weird situation. When she was 11 her father came back married to another woman - not my friends mother. He took her away from Ray to live with them and she HATED it. She behaved appallingly and eventually her father had enough of her and back she went to Ray. Ray gave her love and understanding, he provided a home for her, disciplined her and loved her. When she got pregnant at 16 he provided a home for her and her child and he loved them both without exception. She was a difficult girl without doubt but Ray never turned his back on her and he looked after her when no one else would. Did the fact that he was homosexual matter? Not one iota. He was a good caring and loving man, he made a wonderful father who put up with a lot from his damaged and difficult girl. He was a better father than his brother and I would have let him look after ANY of my children for me and been absolutely sure that they were safe and looked after.
Homosexuals shouldnt bring up children what utter utter nonsense
danc1ngwitch
25-Feb-07, 19:23
Sexual choice??? It is ours to make as we wish of it.
Maybe it's narrow minded people who make it a sin, and therefor
looked down upon for two males to bring up a child.
But however there is scientfic evidence that homosexuality is developed
by nature in the very womb... all to do wea hormones and so on...
Then surely, but surely God planned it that way??? Why?? Well its natural.
Lust is natural to and wow wow wow bets that feels good... lol
Fact is that you can have two parents and let it be man or woman, they
maybe able to love and care unconditionally..
As for the whole aproach to the little one coming of age and asking
sexual things, then let there be no shame.. A child is not stupid,
A child will show no discrimination untill the parents develop this
into their childrens brains...
Open minded parents...easy going..
I say yes gays would make good parents as good as some married
couples...
hi! reference is [leviticus chapter18 verse 22]
Your original quote was
detestable in my sight r homosexuals says god
Which you say is Lev 18:22........well in my KJV it says that is:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 19:48
<quoting squidge>People are people - I cant see that what they do int he bedroom actually makes a difference to their capacity to bring up a child..
I have a friend who is mixed race. She was born in Ghana, her father was white and english her mother was a tribal woman. Her father sent her to a catholic mission to be looked after when she was little more than a toddler. The nuns at the mission beat her because of her parentage, they left scars on her back that she still has. When her father found this out he removed her from the mission and sent her to live with his batchelor brother in Oldham.
Blimey she had it tough! Oldham's an ordeal for anyone !!
<quoting squidge>Homosexuals shouldnt bring up children what utter utter nonsense.
It makes perfect sense to me. Also, I note the lass got pregnant at sixteen so good old 'Ray' didn't make such a good job of fatherhood did he? The lessons we teach our daughters as they develop need to be from the standpoint of deep empathetic concern and love. Not from someone who can't see why women are so darned attractive to men.
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 19:52
Sexual choice??? It is ours to make as we wish of it.
Maybe it's narrow minded people who make it a sin, and therefor
looked down upon for two males to bring up a child.
But however there is scientfic evidence that homosexuality is developed
by nature in the very womb... all to do wea hormones and so on...
Then surely, but surely God planned it that way??? Why?? Well its natural.
Lust is natural to and wow wow wow bets that feels good... lol
Fact is that you can have two parents and let it be man or woman, they
maybe able to love and care unconditionally..
As for the whole aproach to the little one coming of age and asking
sexual things, then let there be no shame.. A child is not stupid,
A child will show no discrimination untill the parents develop this
into their childrens brains...
Open minded parents...easy going..
I say yes gays would make good parents as good as some married
couples...
More tripe I'm afraid, but at least you've ditched the text speak. Nobody (well I'm not) is denying that homosexuality is unnatural. The only un-natural asspect is two bent blokes having a baby!! or a child, or a troublesome adolescent. Just the thing for truculent Trevor from Tonbridge - a pair of mincers for parents. Get real for goodness sake.
reference is [leviticus chapter18 verse 22]
This passage occurs in a section of Leviticus called the "law of holiness" (chs. 18-20); In literary form, chapter 18 resembles the universal texts containing the Ten Commandments.
The Bible nowhere condemns homosexual relationships. Those who claim that it does are selective fundamentalists. They choose to apply a literal interpretation to the small number of texts which mention homosexual acts, but would never think of applying such a literal interpretation to other texts where the result might be inconvenient for themselves – texts for example about the remarriage of the divorced, or usury, or the role of women.
The Bible prohibits sex during menstruation in the very same chapters (Lev 18:19; 20:18), but few Christians have mounted a campaign to expel people who violate that commandment.
It is highly tendentious to single out Lev 18:22 verse and ignore the others.
Hypocrites is a word that comes to mind.
danc1ngwitch
25-Feb-07, 19:58
More tripe I'm afraid, but at least you've ditched the text speak. Nobody (well I'm not) is denying that homosexuality is unnatural. The only un-natural asspect is two bent blokes having a baby!! or a child, or a troublesome adolescent. Just the thing for truculent Trevor from Tonbridge - a pair of mincers for parents. Get real for goodness sake.
a pair o mincers. lol... ops da text talk comes out again...
Man on man does nothing for me... but its love we are talking about.. who says that gay men cannot love as good as the straight man... as for more tripe, in this sad world we live in it takes all kinds not just one of a kind... the perfect person does not exist... anyway this is one thing that you men cannot blame on us women[lol]
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 20:35
This passage occurs in a section of Leviticus called the "law of holiness" (chs. 18-20); In literary form, chapter 18 resembles the universal texts containing the Ten Commandments.
The Bible nowhere condemns homosexual relationships. Those who claim that it does are selective fundamentalists. They choose to apply a literal interpretation to the small number of texts which mention homosexual acts, but would never think of applying such a literal interpretation to other texts where the result might be inconvenient for themselves – texts for example about the remarriage of the divorced, or usury, or the role of women.
The Bible prohibits sex during menstruation in the very same chapters (Lev 18:19; 20:18), but few Christians have mounted a campaign to expel people who violate that commandment.
It is highly tendentious to single out Lev 18:22 verse and ignore the others.
Hypocrites is a word that comes to mind.thanks for the sermon. but the thread is not about the bible my concern is that two practising homosexuals should not adopt children and that the sexual homosextual act is filth.not an inviroment for children.
It makes perfect sense to me. Also, I note the lass got pregnant at sixteen so good old 'Ray' didn't make such a good job of fatherhood did he? The lessons we teach our daughters as they develop need to be from the standpoint of deep empathetic concern and love. Not from someone who can't see why women are so darned attractive to men.
Percy - you haves hown time and time again your complete lack of understanding of anything out of your own narrow sphere of experience... and yet you talk about empathy... You have no comprehension of the damage done to her by the removal from the only safe and loving home she had ever had never mind the appalling things done to her under the guise of religion. She got pregnant at 16, like a million other messed up and not so messed up but unlucky girls. Ray knew fine well how attractive she was to men - he was homosexual not stupid. He did his best to ensure she stayed safe but he didnt quite manage it like a million other heterosexual single or married parents who wring their hands and ask "what did i do?" She may have had a child at 16 but she also had the ability to bring up a clever and articulate and happy child who is now a doctor in a leading childrens hospital in London and has her own delightful family. Where do you think she learned how to be that child's parent? From the nuns? from her own father? No, from a gay man who loved her unconditionally and dealt with her teenage bad behaviour in the best way he could. He might not have been able to prevent her pregnancy but he damn well made sure she knew how to love and support her own child.
Just the thing for truculent Trevor from Tonbridge - a pair of mincers for parents. Get real for goodness sake.
Your flippancy belittles any argument you might make to be honest - i can almost see you sniggering behind your hand at the word "poof" Never mind get real - Jeepers Percy - grow up!!!!
Okay Caithnesslad, how about this. A five year old boy tells his teacher he is so tired because he had to give up his bed for one of his mother's "customers". Sex customers maybe or drug customers - the only place to put him is with a devoted homosexual couple who provide excellent foster care. Should we leave him there?
thanks for the sermon. but the thread is not about the bible my concern is that two practising homosexuals should not adopt children and that the sexual homosextual act is filth.not an inviroment for children.
CL, the thread may not be about the bible, so why did you bother mentioning it or the verse from it in the first place?
the christian bible and god says [that homosexuals are detestable in his sight] do u know that it is far far harder for a single strait person to adopt a child than two homosexuals or lesbians:eek:
Sorry, I thought your concern was borne from your belief in such verses from the bible.
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 20:46
Your original quote was
Which you say is Lev 18:22........well in my KJV it says that is:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abominationyes that is correct. i have the nlt translation more up to date language same meaning:Razz
thanks for the sermon. but the thread is not about the bible my concern is that two practising homosexuals should not adopt children and that the sexual homosextual act is filth.not an inviroment for children.
The heterosexual bedroom is not a place for children either. That is why they are not present when parents are being intimate, just as caring homosexual men or women will not have their children in the bedroom when being intimate (therefor they are removed from what you describe as the enviroment of the homosexual act)! As someone has already said, we, as sons and daughters, normally refuse to believe that our parents are in anyway sexual beings.
The bible cannot be taken as a literal text. If you take it as such you cannot pick and choose the parts that you accept as a statement of fact and therefore should punish women for wearing pants or stone people for breaking the sabath, sell your daughters into marriage, etc, etc
caithness lad
25-Feb-07, 20:57
The heterosexual bedroom is not a place for children either. That is why they are not present when parents are being intimate, just as caring homosexual men or women will not have their children in the bedroom when being intimate (therefor they are removed from what you describe as the enviroment of the homosexual act)! As someone has already said, we, as sons and daughters, normally refuse to believe that our parents are in anyway sexual beings.
The bible cannot be taken as a literal text. If you take it as such you cannot pick and choose the parts that you accept as a statement of fact and therefore should punish women for wearing pants or stone people for breaking the sabath, sell your daughters into marriage, etc, etci wish u would read the threads before replying.what i said was when a child asks their two daddies.how do homosexuals have sex?or what is the homosexual act.
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 21:00
Percy - you haves hown time and time again your complete lack of understanding of anything out of your own narrow sphere of experience...
............Your flippancy belittles any argument you might make to be honest - i can almost see you sniggering behind your hand at the word "poof" Never mind get real - Jeepers Percy - grow up!!!!
If you cannot see the purpose of a little humour here and there then it's you who is the 'narrow' one. You are so inclusive, so earnest. Your fawning amelioration of almost every bandwagon minority is symptomatic of those who do not have the inner gumption to form a negative opinion of anybody.
Oh! except people such as myself who are not cowed enough to speak up for things we believe in. Easy going all inclusive people like you have rapidly become a part of the problem that is reducing this country to a laughing stock and a haven for every form of minority which recognises its wagging tail can overwhelm the dog.
Incidentally I see little to 'snigger' about in the term 'poof' In fact 'sniggering' generally is not quite my bag. I have 'grown up'...a long time ago.In a land where homosexuals didn't adopt children and the very idea would have caused outrage. We are what we are. Do not try to denigrate me for it ill serves your argument.
danc1ngwitch
25-Feb-07, 21:28
there are lots of things that are strange to some.
Say a child grows up in a house where the child calls the uncle daddy...
3 adults taking care of this child...
this child is not harmed by this, nor unhappy with it..
Child goes to school ... then the child fInds out that it is a different situation she is in... What is normal ??? The child is unharmed by it infact the child turns out to be very open to almost everything... very honest and not afraid of a DIFFERENCE... and i ask you, what is normal.
sassylass
25-Feb-07, 21:41
i wish u would read the threads before replying.what i said was when a child asks their two daddies.how do homosexuals have sex?or what is the homosexual act.
Hopefully the two daddies would answer in the same way a mother and daddy would answer, or the way two mothers would answer, openly yet delicately.
percy toboggan
25-Feb-07, 21:42
and i ask you, what is normal.
I don't think it matters. Because, as adults 'normality' is not what we should strive for. A homogenous bland existence where nobody is different to anyone else would be the stuff of nightmares.
All we need to remember as a first priority - is to protect the vulnerable. A childs upbringing does need to be relatively normal, safe and secure. In as much as this is impossible for some, we should not be placing them in an abnormal environment until they are old enough to see it as such.
I don't think it's normal to be exchanging ideas with strangers on such controversial topics for much of a sunday evening - so what do I know.
Over and out.
danc1ngwitch
25-Feb-07, 22:12
i just asked my daughter what she thought..
She replyed" ewwwww minging, the child would be bullied in school, she says its just wrong" so there u go... from a childs point of veiw it is indeed wrong...
i just asked my daughter what she thought..
She replyed" ewwwww minging, the child would be bullied in school, she says its just wrong" so there u go... from a childs point of veiw it is indeed wrong...
thank you for that dancing witch, that answers one of the issues in my post
What goes on between two consenting adults should be their business and their business alone, it's the 21st century and being gay isn't anything new so I'm suggesting just get over it.
If two adults of whatever sex want to make the lifelong committment to adopt and can offer a loving and stable enviroment to a child in need then it should be taken as there are too many children in need of a decent home.
Some of the threads in this post have left nothing at all to the imagination, I'm in my 30's and yep I am shocked, I just hope most of the younger members have skipped this topic of discussion.
The natural way with all creatures is male plus female. I don't have to hold an "ology" to know that.
I used to have a homosexual duck.
He couldn't get up for down.
As I understand it the Government is insisting that every person and organisation should accept adoption by same sex couples.
Unless I have misunderstood the situation, the Catholic Church has not said that nobody and no organisation should tolerate adoption by same sex couples.
I wonder just where the intolerance lies? Many years ago we used to burn people for holding different views, fortunately we have advanced a little bit from that, but by the sound of things, not by very much.
All that has happened recently is that many people have moved away from Religious Beliefs without realising that they have just found a different Alter to bow down to in order to spread their version of "The one and only Truth!"
They are so busy pointing the finger at others and claiming they are being narrow minded and unreasonable that they completely fail to see that they have fallen into exactly the same trap.
All you have to do is listen to the loud protestations of innocence whenever this is pointed out. Such heresy must not be allowed to be spoken, at least not in public.
It’s fun to watch the very people who set out to put an end to intolerance rapidly developing completely intolerant attitudes themselves. A check of many centuries of history will show that this occurs time after time and that those claiming to be acting against oppression in the cause of freedom rapidly change until they become the oppressors themselves and usually manage to exceed the attitudes they calim to find so abhorrent.
“You will accept what we say or we will make you suffer for daring to disagree!” Such is their love of freedom and justice for all.
Come on Fred, the duck couldn't help being quackers!
I assume somebody did'nt like what I said, or I struck a nerve, as my post seems to have gone walkies!
Perhaps somebody would have the good manners to put me right..................................
As I understand it the Government is insisting that every person and organisation should accept adoption by same sex couples.
Unless I have misunderstood the situation, the Catholic Church has not said that nobody and no organisation should tolerate adoption by same sex couples.
I wonder just where the intolerance lies?
Well that's an easy one to answer, just substitute "black" or "disabled" for "same sex" and see how it sounds.
If the Catholic Church didn't mind other organisations letting black couples adopt would it then not be discrimination for them to refuse to let black couples adopt themselves? If an employer doesn't mind other people employing disabled people then he isn't guilty of discrimination if he refuses to employ disabled people himself?
The intolerence lies not in the Catholic Church believing homosexuality is a sin but in them refusing to let a gay couple adopt because of it. Just as if a doctor who believed homosexuality was a sin would be discriminating if he refused to give treatment to a homosexual because of it or if an estate agent who was a member of the BNP refused to sell a house to a coloured family.
5 pages of replies and debate wow! This an emotive one. I tend to believe that people have a right to their own privacy and to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes with due regard for personal choice, safety, consent etc.
Do we have a reason for allowing a church group to 'opt out' of a section of the law. well as many have shown there are already a lot of precedents for permitting this.
Strange as this may sound, I believe that the courts and social work departments would side with the wishes of the child, as long as no risk to the safety of the child exists. So........... where do I stand - hard to decide.
I think I'm happier with the thought of the child being in a happy, loving, supportive home than worried about the genders of those acting as parents or their private bedroom preferences.
As a parent who has had to do that 'talk' a couple of times - It is amazing how much of the information I gave was already known from both the playground and from the Scottish Executive's Sex Ed program delivered in school. The amount of information children already have at a younger and younger age frightens me more than the 2 dads debate. They are growing up fast and losing their childhoods
I assume somebody did'nt like what I said, or I struck a nerve, as my post seems to have gone walkies!
Perhaps somebody would have the good manners to put me right..................................
Well I did think when I read your post myself that you could have phrased it a bit better. I tried to find a way to point out your double entendre without getting myself banned but couldn't think of one. :-)
Yes, I did say that my opinions were extreme, but they are mine, and they are shared by more than 50% of the population.
As to the Duck, my chickens may be that way inclined, as I have'nt got a cockeral, but the eggs keep coming.
Well that's an easy one to answer, just substitute "black" or "disabled" for "same sex" and see how it sounds.
Nice one, Fred, but if you want to play what if, what if any organisation refused to allow smokers to adopt, which they do, or a drug addict or alcoholic? The State Adoption Agencies have all sorts of people who they discriminate against when it comes to adopting children.
The argument you use opens the way for the argument that any group who are prevented from adopting are being discriminated against.
All animals are equal but some are less equal than others. At least when it comes to politically motivated dogma that is.
Intolerance of the beliefs of others is intolerance none the less, however reasonably it is wrapped up and for whatever motives.
wavy davy
26-Feb-07, 01:24
I've got no time for organised religion. Therefore my view of this definitely has nothing to do with supporting the Catholic Church per se.
I have no strong views one way or the other on homosexuals adopting kids, but I do object to the homogenisation of belief being forced down our throats by central Government.
Given that there are a multitude of adoption agencies I don't see what is wrong in allowing them to express their own views in terms of their restrictions on who can or can't adopt kids through them. If their views are abhorrent to the population at large then they will go under.
Wavy davy, my point exactly. There is a new Religious Dogma being imposed on the public which is just as dogmatic in the way it is behaving as many of the long standing Religions. They pursue dissenters with just as much zeal as other Religions have pursued them in the past.
You have to accept their beliefs under pain of punishment for failure. They haven't resorted to burning heretics but there are those who display every sign of wishing they could.
Nice one, Fred, but if you want to play what if, what if any organisation refused to allow smokers to adopt, which they do, or a drug addict or alcoholic? The State Adoption Agencies have all sorts of people who they discriminate against when it comes to adopting children.
The argument you use opens the way for the argument that any group who are prevented from adopting are being discriminated against.
All animals are equal but some are less equal than others. At least when it comes to politically motivated dogma that is.
Intolerance of the beliefs of others is intolerance none the less, however reasonably it is wrapped up and for whatever motives.
So in your opinion someone who is homosexual should be considered more like a drug adict than a coloured person? They send drug adicts to prison why not send homosexuals to prison?
So in your opinion someone who is homosexual should be considered more like a drug adict than a coloured person? They send drug adicts to prison why not send homosexuals to prison?
Well, yes........if they commit crimes, it would be the same situation for a drug addict. Being a drug addict is not a crime.
“You will accept what we say or we will make you suffer for daring to disagree!” Such is their love of freedom and justice for all.
Some might look on me as bad mother for working and might be of the opinion that mothers/women not play an active role in the work force and be exclusively dedicated to raising a family. Now I disagree with that opinion. And the day someone tries to enforce that opinion is the day I go down kicking and screaming in intolerant protest ( or not ;) ).
Now what the catholic church proposes is that based on their opinion of homosexuals that they be denied something ( and that some children also be denied something) that has nothing to do with being a good or bad parent. Is that right? I dinna think so.
As for this thread, it reminds me of what a friend of mine once told me, who was not gay but did happen to share a house with a gay friend: People (especially men) who greatly protest that homosexuality is against nature/sinful/disgusting are often those that feel less secure in their own sexuality and in themselves. How can two people caring about eachother and looking after eachother, be they friends, family or lovers be a bad thing?
Considering the Catholic churches track record with protecting pedophile priests, moving them around from school to school, I think they do not have a leg to stand on telling a normal, vetoed homosexual person or couple that they are not fit to raise children because of their sexuality.
Nice one, Fred, but if you want to play what if, what if any organisation refused to allow smokers to adopt, which they do, or a drug addict or alcoholic? The State Adoption Agencies have all sorts of people who they discriminate against when it comes to adopting children.
.
Smokers, drug addicts and alcoholics will by their life style put the childrens health and/or lives in danger.
Being a homosexual does not put a childs life or health in danger.
Smokers, drug addicts and alcoholics will by their life style put the childrens health and/or lives in danger.
Being a homosexual does not put a childs life or health in danger.
Sorry Ju I disagree, what about AIDS?
Sorry Ju I disagree, what about AIDS?
Golach, surely you do not believe that all homosexuals have AIDS (let me correct you: HIV) and surely you know that HIV is transmitted through sexual contact. Surely you also know that there are HIV positive mothers giving birth to healthy babies. Should those babies be removed from their mothers because they are positive. HIV is a disease which affects anyone, of any sex who has risk behaviours with another person of any sex who happens to be positive. It is not exclusive to the homosexual population and infact for many many years now the main sexual form of transmission has been through heterosexual intercourse ( drug use, with shared needles has been number one for a while now).
You can live everyday of your life in a household full of HIV positive people in a normal healthy, familial way and never "catch" it. You can even be half of a couple (homosexual or heterosexual) and as long as precautions are taken, live a realtively normal relationship.
Though probably, if someone HIV positive does try to adopt, they might be denied for the reason that their health can at anytime deteriorate (this is AIDS) and they might even die, thus not being able to give a child upbringing for the time that it needs.
Golach, surely you do not believe that all homosexuals have AIDS (let me correct you: HIV) and surely you know that HIV is transmitted through sexual contact. Surely you also know that there are HIV positive mothers giving birth to healthy babies. Should those babies be removed from their mothers because they are positive. HIV is a disease which affects anyone, of any sex who has risk behaviours with another person of any sex who happens to be positive. It is not exclusive to the homosexual population and infact for many many years now the main sexual form of transmission has been through heterosexual intercourse ( drug use, with shared needles has been number one for a while now).
You can live everyday of your life in a household full of HIV positive people in a normal healthy, familial way and never "catch" it. You can even be half of a couple (homosexual or heterosexual) and as long as precautions are taken, live a realtively normal relationship.
Though probably, if someone HIV positive does try to adopt, they might be denied for the reason that their health can at anytime deteriorate (this is AIDS) and they might even die, thus not being able to give a child upbringing for the time that it needs.
Oh I do agree with you Ju, but the threat is still there
Oh I do agree with you Ju, but the threat is still there
I could be sitting in my livingroom, and a stray bullet from a gun fight come through the window and hit me. Instead of double glazing should I have bullet proof glass installed?
PS: A couple is checked extensively when they want to adopt. Those include checks on the relationship, lifestyles, health, mental stability, finances, etc, etc, etc, etc. The risk behaviours for HIV infection would eliminate a couple as prospective adoptee parents, be they hetero- or homo-sexual. If a couple is in a stable exclusive relationship without EV drug use then the risk of HIV coming into that house is NIL, zero, nada. Before someone says, ah...but they might be lying and fooling social services, I would put to you that homosexual people are no more inclined to lie than heterosexual people.
What goes on between two consenting adults should be their business and their business alone, it's the 21st century and being gay isn't anything new so I'm suggesting just get over it.
If two adults of whatever sex want to make the lifelong committment to adopt and can offer a loving and stable enviroment to a child in need then it should be taken as there are too many children in need of a decent home.
Some of the threads in this post have left nothing at all to the imagination, I'm in my 30's and yep I am shocked, I just hope most of the younger members have skipped this topic of discussion.
what goes on between two consenting audults is only part of the issue . the issue being that homosexuals aught not be elligible to adopt children
Well, yes........if they commit crimes, it would be the same situation for a drug addict. Being a drug addict is not a crime.
True, there are many people addicted to drugs, many for legitimate reasons and who obtain the drugs they need legally.
Somehow I don't think that was the sort of drug addict JAWS had in mind though.
the issue being that homosexuals aught not be elligible to adopt children
Why? What part of being a homosexual makes you in-ellegible?
Homosexual couples should not be able to adopt.
Yes they can probably provide everything a 'normal' couple could but kids being brought up in a predominately homosexual environment is not natural.
What about school, do these children have to put up with extreme bullying because their adoptive parents are gay?
Kids get bullied for the slightest things and having homosexual parents is a step too far in my eyes.
Homosexuality is an abnormal behavour and should never be accepted as anything less.
Without heterosexual couples our species would soon die out,remember that.
Why? What part of being a homosexual makes you in-ellegible?
i think dancing witch answered part of your question. the other part is that it IS immoral. like i said if they keep it inside the confines of their own home who cares. but where children are concerned thats something else.
any way that is my views & my concerns and i wont be moved on it and thats that. call me a bigot if you like ,im firm on this & thats the way i was brought up [disgust]
I think you are well within your rights to say that you personally think that homosexuality is wrong. I can accepts absolutely your right to beleive that and to say so but then you arent the state making decisions that simply because of something someone does in the bedroom they are unsuitable parents. I find some heterosexual practices quite unpalatable but i dont think that means that the couple are unfit to be parents. .
Prospective parents - whatever their sexuality will be screened and matched against the children and a decision made as to the best possible home for that child. If the state says that homosexuals cannot and must not be trusted with bringing up a child then situations like my friends would have been even more difficult, Ray wouldnt have been ALLOWED to look after her. She would have been taken into care maybe for some considerable time, She wasnt a baby - many adoptive parents want babies, she was mixed race, not very popular in oldham in 1969, she was a difficult child, screaming and night terrors were common, fighting and biting alternated with periods of complete silence. She would steal food and wet the bed for a long time after arriving here. Not an easy placement.
The best option for most children is a loving married husband and wife - there arent many people that would deny that but it isnt always possible. Narrowing the field of prospective loving parents is a shame and in my mind its wrong. The less children are placed into Care homes the better if you ask me - given that we seem to fail those children more than placing them with homosexual parents would fail them.
It was reported in Scotland on Sunday this morning that the Scottish Executive are in talks with Westminster in the hope of allowing The catholic church in Scotland a concession against the recently passed law at Westminster which prohibits all adoption agencies from discriminating against homosexual couples in their desire to adopt chuildren.
Should the church realign its values with modern day thinking?
Being neither a Roman Catholic nor a UK citizen I have been hesitant to engage in this discussion. However, a few more general issues have been raised and on those I'll comment.
...The Christian Church's attitude toward human sexuality has always been very negative:
The issue of homosexual relationships has been strongly supported by and many of the legal challenges in this area were led by the church, not all of the Christian church, but certain branches of it.
Your original quote was
Which you say is Lev 18:22........well in my KJV it says that is:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination
This has come to be understood as a reminder that adultery is adultery no matter what the gender of the partner.
Any physical or emotional infidelity breaks relationship.
I have no strong views one way or the other on homosexuals adopting kids, but I do object to the homogenisation of belief being forced down our throats by central Government.
I don't see a religious belief being forced upon people by their government. This is about a religious organization having the freedom within the nation to set its own values and practices.
Sometime ago I attempted (very badly) to put forward a hypothesis for how things became acceptable/unacceptable and laws/rules were established – I don’t want to go over the same ground again, because I made such a bad job of it last time. I see no reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt, and if they were prevented from doing so it would be discriminatory BUT, and here is the uncomfortable bit for me – I find it goes against my better nature. Why? Probably because I am a bit of a hypocrite, my consternation stems from an unquantifiable factor in my psyche, something tells me it just is not right. Bizarrely I “think” that a male homosexual couple would provide a better home environment, than a lesbian couple – why? I don’t know, it’s just what I think.
Now my point in posting this is that these are my feelings, I struggle with justifying them –when put on paper I can see glaring holes in them. But they are mine and are a product of my journey through life to date – everyone has their own thoughts and feelings, they could be flawed, and it’s a bit daunting to question them.
danc1ngwitch
26-Feb-07, 15:49
lesbians, i have a vision[lol] but i wont get myself banned.
Females, males, Love, respect...
and so the differences go on...
Feel my pain...
One day in heaven, the Lord decided He would visit the earth and take a stroll. Walking down the road, He encountered a man who was crying.
The Lord asked the man, "Why are you crying, my son?" The man said that he was blind and had never seen a sunset. The Lord touched the man who could then see and was happy.
As the Lord walked further, He met another man crying and asked, "Why are you crying, my son?" The man was born a cripple and was never able to walk. The Lord touched him and he could walk and he was happy.
Farther down the road, the Lord met another man who was crying and asked, "Why are you crying, my son?" The man said, "Lord, I am a homosexual
...and the Lord sat down and cried with him.
[lol]
I've hesitated to post in this thread because (like scotsboy) I'm struggling with my feelings here too.
I have no doubt that a homosexual couple could provide a stable, caring home for a child...and I certainly wouldn't try to prevent them doing so....but I can't somehow accept the concept of them being "parents". :confused
percy toboggan
26-Feb-07, 17:48
[quote=_Ju_;195108]
As for this thread, it reminds me of what a friend of mine once told me, who was not gay but did happen to share a house with a gay friend: People (especially men) who greatly protest that homosexuality is against nature/sinful/disgusting are often those that feel less secure in their own sexuality.......
quote]
The old chestnut. Intended to stifle debate. It's absolute cobblers of course. I once thought all that Manchester United represented was 'disgusting' does this mean I'm a closet red? Not one bit of it.
I grew up and changed my view, funnily enough though I've never changed my opinion of homosexuals. All fine and dandy if they keep quiet and get on with it behind closed doors, don't importune in public lavs and don't try to adopt children.
....Ive no problem with it, as long as they don't make it compulsory
percy toboggan
26-Feb-07, 17:56
I've hesitated to post in this thread because (like scotsboy) I'm struggling with my feelings here too.
I have no doubt that a homosexual couple could provide a stable, caring home for a child...and I certainly wouldn't try to prevent them doing so....but I can't somehow accept the concept of them being "parents". :confused
It's not just you that's strugglin' 'ere.
What point are you making exactly?
It's obviously causing some inner conflict but what is
your considered view?
:confused I'm confused too !!
Help me out.??
In my case I'm horrified that I may have some bigoted tendencies like you Percy.
percy toboggan
26-Feb-07, 18:14
In my case I'm horrified that I may have some bigoted tendencies like you Percy.
Why the rush to use the 'b' word. Are you such a conformist?
'Tis the resort of those bereft of argument. If I'm 'bigoted' in what I've written about homosexuals you need to invent some new terms for the real
hard liners Scotsboy.
Why the rush to use the 'b' word. Are you such a conformist?
'Tis the resort of those bereft of argument. If I'm 'bigoted' in what I've written about homosexuals you need to invent some new terms for the real
hard liners Scotsboy.
They are ignorant Percy - By the way I have no problem with bigots, I'm bigoted in many ways myself, as many will tell you;)
.
Homosexuality is an abnormal behavour and should never be accepted as anything less.
Then why does homosexual behaviour ocurr in nature as a part of growing up in higher mamals species?
It's not just you that's strugglin' 'ere.
What point are you making exactly?
It's obviously causing some inner conflict but what is
your considered view?
:confused I'm confused too !!
Help me out.??
Well...I have been considering...and...I don't think any two people of the same sex (should I say gender?) can be "parents" to anyone.
IMO they can be lots of good things, but not parents.
It is only my personal feeling.
That's what I was trying to say.:confused
connieb19
26-Feb-07, 19:30
Then why does homosexual behaviour ocurr in nature as a part of growing up in higher mamals species?
Cannibalism is also normal in the animal kingdom, it dosn't make it okay for us humans to do it.
A gay couple are not equiped to have children so should not be allowed to adopt.
Children need a loving secure home, preferably with two people in a secure, stable relationship. Whether you call them parents or not doesn't really matter (what is the definition of parent?). This has to be better than being brought up "in care", which is generally anything but caring - frequently moved from pillar to post and kicked out at 16.
As for the Roman Catholic authorities, maybe they should take a good hard look at their own record with children before expressing views on the morality or otherwise of homosexuals adopting. Unfortunately they are so ignorant they still refer to homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, even though everyone who knows anything about it knows that it is how people are born, just like people are born of indeterminate gender. Is it any reason to deny them the love and security of a permanent relationship, and following that the right to share some of that love with unwanted children?
If children have problems at school because their parents are two people of the same sex, then that's the fault of other parents who have passed their prejudices on to their children. Just like racial prejudice, children don't have it until their parents teach them to. Racial prejudice is slowly dying out amongst civilised people so maybe one day other prejudices will also die.
Maybe one day we'll stop sticking labels on people and judge them by their personalities.
Cannibalism is also normal in the animal kingdom, it dosn't make it okay for us humans to do it.
A gay couple are not equiped to have children so should not be allowed to adopt.
You don't have wings - does that stop you from flying?
connieb19
26-Feb-07, 20:28
You don't have wings - does that stop you from flying?There's a huge difference between flying and raising a child. For starters the child will be a prime target for bullies, I dont think this is fair on any kid. :confused
There's a huge difference between flying and raising a child. For starters the child will be a prime target for bullies, I dont think this is fair on any kid. :confused
There's also a huge difference between cannabilism and homosexuality not to mention that one is a perfectly legal position and the other isnt.
I don't think it's normal for homosexuals to feel revulsion against themselves.
Very often people who are discriminated against believe what people say about them. That's the nature of discrimination. Whether it's big ears or spots or illegitimacy or homosexuality the person being discriminated against takes some of the stuff people say about them on board, whether conscuiously or unconsciously.
The old chestnut. Intended to stifle dabate. It's absolute cobblers of course. I once thought all the Manchester United represented was 'disgusting' does this mean I'm a closet red? Not one bit of it.
It's actually a sound theory Percy and many wounded people have been released from their phobias through becoming aware of their repressed sexuality. Now I'm not saying your a closet poofter but it would take a bit more than a few encounters on a vibrant thread on Caithness.org before I would eliminate the possibility. As for your Manchester United analogy. It's nonsense! The cultural and social circumstances involved in choosing a football team are miles removed from someones sexuality. Your decision to support City was probably taken as a result of family associations or rivalry amongst young boys. It was either City or United. No big deal and no massive taboo surrounding your choice. Sexuality now, that's different and I am still trying to understand your obsession with the difference between your own and someone elses. I dont get it.
Gleeber, when are there "Crucifictions supposed to be taking place?
Your still behind that curtain Jaws?
As for the original questions. Ideally the church would change it's philosophy and update it's holy book but that's unlikely. So, give the catholic church a couple of years to get it's act together and then use the law against them if they continue to discriminate against homosexuals.
There's a huge difference between flying and raising a child. For starters the child will be a prime target for bullies, I dont think this is fair on any kid. :confused
Children at school are bullied for all sorts of reasons, and none. They are bullied for being the wrong colour, the wrong size, for being underachievers, for being bright, for not being athletic, etc. as well as for having families who don't fit in for whatever reason. The problem is with the bullies and their families, not with the bullied or theirs.
Homosexuality has been around much longer than Christianity and will still be here long after Christianity has had its time. It has never been, and will never be, a threat to the continued existence of Mankind. We, as a species, have many other flaws that are much more likely to lead to our demise.
Sexual orientation is a choice made by the individual. It is a choice made from within, based on the way a person feels, rather than the notion that it is a "disease" that someone is born with, or the result of "brainwashing" by other homosexuals.
If we look at the mechanics of human sexual acts, none of it is particularly savoury when you get right down to it, since the three possible "portals" are all used for waste materials during normal service. This does not, however, prevent "normal" heterosexual couples from indulging in every permutation possible and quite often donning a Batman suit for good measure. I dare say many of these are people are classed as good parents despite their recreational activities.
I would bet it would shock many to know what goes on behind closed doors in seemingly strait-laced households. My own feeling is, that if the participants are old enough and consenting (and of course alive!!) then it is up to themselves to decide what floats their boats. You spend an awful long time dead and I don't think anyone should spend a life in misery because their behaviour would offend some judgemental, self-righteous moral bastion of the community.
The Bible is oft quoted but has no relevance to the modern world and is always interpreted to suit what the reader wishes to take from it. If you wish to look for flaws in the bible then you need go no further than Genesis. Noah dies at the age of 950, pretty ripe age you say and no NHS drugs on the go then either!! Obviously this is nonsense and I have heard it explained that in Biblical times a month may have been considered a year. OK that makes Noah 79 when he died, terrific, we have a realistic scale now. Woops, what's this? Genesis says that Abram is 86 years old when he fathers Ishmael and Sarah bears a Son Isaac when she is 90. On our new scale that makes them both 7 years of age. A little bit precocious I would have thought!!
Let me put it to you that if you started any other book with that scenario, you would have little faith in taking it seriously. For me, the Bible belongs in the Dark Ages when people feared the Bogeyman and were pretty much ignorant. There is much that remains mysterious even today but, thankfully, we can be enlightened enough to dispense with the Fairy Stories.
Tolerance of Difference is the way forward.
The original thread was about Catholics crucifying homosexuals. IMHO they should, and many years ago they were allowed to.
Religion has caused its fair share of conflict over the years, and will continue to do so, whilst the fanatics can preach their venom freely.
What has happened to this land is the Politically Correct Pillocks of Parliament have become power mad, and destroyed the moral standards that existed.
The damage is permanent. I do not see anyway it can be reversed.
IMHO people can be whatever they wish, providing the keep it to themselves and don't ram it down my throat.
I am a product of the Foster care system, and shudder to think what could have happened if I had ended up with a couple of Homos. THere was enough trouble as it was with Men and Women That were Strangely orientated.( I put it like that as I have had my knuckles rapped over my original post-quite right too, I'm sure). IN fact some of the cases are only just coming to light now.
It is a sad sign of our time that this thread even exists, but it has certainly made for a debate, and reading between the lines of a lot of the posts, I am sure that a lot of people share my Feelings.
I think the name of the Thread, which I assume Gleeber is quoting from some attention grabbing comment in the Media, says everything.
You will either bend the knee at the Alter of the Modern Moral Codes or be held up to public ridicule as some sort of vengeful, Dark Age throwback unfit to exist amongst "Right Thinking People".
"We are totally intolerant of your intolerance and will force you to accept our views!"
What a tolerant, inclusive attitude they display Next thing they will be demanding that Heretics who refuse to convert to the New Religion should be slaughtered to save their “Immoral Souls”.
They behave with the zeal of the Spanish Inquisition in rooting out and destroying such Reactionary Thinking. :roll:
"We are totally intolerant of your intolerance and will force you to accept our views!"
You can have any views you want JAWS, you can't force belief on anyone. All the government is doing is to make it illegal for someone to discrimanate against someone else.
You obviously see homosexuals as being inferior to you, just as many men see women as being inferior and they were discriminated against, still are, because of it. The government can't stop people wanting to feel superior to others, people enjoy it too much, all they can do is make gender based discrimination illegal, you can go on feeling superior all you want to.
My belief, not forcing it on anyone is that homosexuals of whatever gender should never be able to adopt as the children involved have a hard enough life and don't need that sort of emotional baggage and anybody willing to put a child through the severe bullying they are going to recieve, (not just at school), are certainly not fit to be parents.
"Bullying is the fault of the parents intolerance of the way others lead their lives", yes, that is a factor and we could all be a little more tolerant of other people and their ways but there are also other factors in bullying, i.e, as we are nothing more than animals we are still bound by the rules of the pecking order so any budding sociologists out there could maybe enlighten us on this complicated and wide ranging subject.
Someone stated that homosexuality occurs within the animal kingdom and this is true to a certain extent but have you ever heard of an animal that makes a life partner out of it's same sex species apart from humankind?
The catholic church should indeed look at it's own problems with paedophilic priests but they are totaly right to denounce the adoption of children by homosexual partners, at least they have something right.
Maybe, just maybe, the fact that we are now teaching tolerance to our children in many ways, in another generation the bullying and the intolerance will not be so pronounced.
I think we can accept that, going by this thread, we have a long way to go yet. We are all entitled to our beliefs but are we entitled to force them on our children? Let them make up their own minds and you never know, we may yet live in a tolerant society.
I like to believe that we give our children the right to think for themselves. I know there are lots of problems with vandals, mini or otherwise but we are only aware of them because they are the ones who get the attention.
I like talking to young people who have been encouraged to think for themselves; it is enlightening and I firmly believe that if more attention was paid to them by the media etc., we would be more aware of the goodness there is out there.
If our youngster (and oldsters) read and saw more of the good in people (of which there are lots) I'd like to think that many would want to be part of that culture, not the ones publicised so much on TV etc.
To those who are religious, keep praying and though not so myself, I do believe in our children.
[quote=fred;195489]You can have any views you want JAWS, you can't force belief on anyone. All the government is doing is to make it illegal for someone to discriminate against someone else.
The PC Pillocks in this world will NEVER stop discrimination, as that is the nature of the beast.
They actively encourage it when it suits as they discriminate against various peoples or groups doing things they don't like.
It is fact that the majority of people view Homosexual practice, in whatever form, as weird, strange or whatever. Every normal person has a view on the subject.
I have my view, which is well known to everybody that knows me, and I will NEVER change it.
Should they be allowed to adopt - NEVER - they should not be allowed anywhere near children.
I am sure that I know many people of "strange" persuasion, but as long as they keep it to themselves, I will not know, and will not discriminate against them. If I got to know and had the power, I would run them out of town.
You can have any views you want JAWS, you can't force belief on anyone. All the government is doing is to make it illegal for someone to discrimanate against someone else.
You obviously see homosexuals as being inferior to you, just as many men see women as being inferior and they were discriminated against, still are, because of it. The government can't stop people wanting to feel superior to others, people enjoy it too much, all they can do is make gender based discrimination illegal, you can go on feeling superior all you want to.Not only are your comments completely fallacious but there is nowhere, in this, or any Thread on the subject of Homosexuality either on this Board or anywhere else which would give rise to such a comment.
Again, I did not say that people could be forced to “believe” anything only that, in the name of tolerance and dissent would not be tolerated.
Your accusations are exactly the attitude I have pointed out. "We are totally intolerant of your perceived intolerance (my added bold) and will force you to accept our views!" The comment I used was, “You will either bend the knee at the Alter of the Modern Moral Codes or be held up to public ridicule as some sort of vengeful, Dark Age throwback unfit to exist amongst "Right Thinking People".”
My comments were aimed at those who display the exact attitude you have shown and not at homosexuals in any way shape or form. Anybody who makes any comment other than in line with the “Approved Dogma” we be denigrated as, and I quote again, “some sort of vengeful, Dark Age throwback unfit to exist amongst "Right Thinking People".”
I have never had the slightest problem with homosexuals, have mixed with them in the past socially and would do so again and had good friends who were homosexual and, indeed have a nephew who is homosexual.
As a result, I find your accusations totally ridiculous and, indeed, rather amusing.
Again, I did not say that people could be forced to “believe” anything only that, in the name of tolerance and dissent would not be tolerated.
Anybody who makes any comment other than in line with the “Approved Dogma” we be denigrated as, and I quote again, “some sort of vengeful, Dark Age throwback unfit to exist amongst "Right Thinking People".”
You forgot that anybody that doesn't agree with children being adopted by homosexuals are branded homophobic so it works both ways.
Not only are your comments completely fallacious but there is nowhere, in this, or any Thread on the subject of Homosexuality either on this Board or anywhere else which would give rise to such a comment.
Again, I did not say that people could be forced to “believe” anything only that, in the name of tolerance and dissent would not be tolerated.
Your accusations are exactly the attitude I have pointed out. "We are totally intolerant of your perceived intolerance (my added bold) and will force you to accept our views!" The comment I used was, “You will either bend the knee at the Alter of the Modern Moral Codes or be held up to public ridicule as some sort of vengeful, Dark Age throwback unfit to exist amongst "Right Thinking People".”
My comments were aimed at those who display the exact attitude you have shown and not at homosexuals in any way shape or form. Anybody who makes any comment other than in line with the “Approved Dogma” we be denigrated as, and I quote again, “some sort of vengeful, Dark Age throwback unfit to exist amongst "Right Thinking People".”
I have never had the slightest problem with homosexuals, have mixed with them in the past socially and would do so again and had good friends who were homosexual and, indeed have a nephew who is homosexual.
As a result, I find your accusations totally ridiculous and, indeed, rather amusing.
Yeh, yeh, some of your best friends are homosexual, heard it all before.
All the government is doing is stopping people discriminating against a homosexual in the same way they stop people discriminating against a woman or, indeed, a man.
People pointing out that all the personal prejudices bandied about on this thread are just that, personal prejudices, is not intollerence. Refusing to let a gay couple adopt on the grounds that they are gay is intollerence.
Yeh, yeh, some of your best friends are homosexual, heard it all before.
All the government is doing is stopping people discriminating against a homosexual in the same way they stop people discriminating against a woman or, indeed, a man.
People pointing out that all the personal prejudices bandied about on this thread are just that, personal prejudices, is not intollerence. Refusing to let a gay couple adopt on the grounds that they are gay is intollerence.
You agree then that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt?
As far as i am concerned people are entitled to their individual beliefs and to say so. They also have to accept that i have a right to challenge them if they say " homosexuality is un natural and people should be treated differently by the state if they are gay" because i beleive that "homosexuality is immaterial and people should not be treated differently by the state if they are gay". None of this is about saying people HAVE to accept homosexuality.
I can understand that people are a product of their experiences - some are able to think outside those experiences and some arent. Of course i think i am right[lol] but i am equally as sure that those who oppose my opinion think they are too. There may be those who are unsure or unclear about how they feel and i will always do my best to persuade them that i am right - isnt that the nature of debate? Why are people surprised by that?
I beleive that discrimination is wrong that... in the words of someone - i forget now who it was - "the state has no business in the bedrooms of ordinary people". I beleive that if a homosexual couple or a homosexual man or woman is the best person for a particular child then they should be considered....or if you like - they shouldnt be barred from consideration because of their sexuality. It may be that a particular child benefits from that environment it may be that they wont. The matching and screening will decide that. But if you refuse to allow homosexuals to adopt on the grounds of what they do in the bedroom, then surely you have to look at ALL sexual practices and decide whether they are indicative of someone who is fit to look after children. And if you look on the internet and in the papers then you will see there are some very strange goings in the heterosexual community that i find alarming or at the very least just plain weird. does that mean they are unfit to be parents? Again - what people do in the bedroom is their own business not the business of the govenrment
You agree then that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt?
Being homosexual is no reason to prevent someone from adopting.
"We are totally intolerant of your intolerance and will force you to accept our views!"
What a tolerant, inclusive attitude they display Next thing they will be demanding that Heretics who refuse to convert to the New Religion should be slaughtered to save their “Immoral Souls”.
They behave with the zeal of the Spanish Inquisition in rooting out and destroying such Reactionary Thinking. :roll:
I find your arguement here to be over-the-top and a little perverse. I have followed your posts closely over a fair amount of time and find you to be inconsistent. You put forward a strong view on tolerating immigrants but in another post defended your right to call minority groups any nickname you see fit (Welcome to the UK Mr Slant-Eye Chinky). You preach tolerance and inclusion as positive attitudes towards people from foreign lands and point the racist finger at those who wish to exclude them. Now you talk of the same tolerant attitudes as being akin to the Inquisition. That is clearly a case of "What Jaws thinks is right is OK, other people are wrong"
What I find totally wrong is the idea that anyone can be dubbed as either suitable or unsuitable for the job of parenting based solely on their sexual orientation. There are a shedload of totally unsuitable heterosexual couples in the UK, so it is clear that many other factors are more important in the effective upbringing of a child. Why would a homosexual person be any more likely to have sex with a child than a heterosexual person? There is no evidence that homosexual attraction is any stronger than heterosexual attraction (club 18-30 holiday anyone?) and heterosexual fathers, stepfathers, foster fathers have all been recorded as having taken the "forbidden fruit" despite their "normal" orientation.
I am not asking anyone to "convert" to my way of thinking. I simply believe that it is better to keep an open mind and put a bit of thought into why they feel the way they do. "Shirtlifters, back-passage, filth, I'll NEVER change" does not display a lot of depth in analysing the subject (apologies to the phobes for the letters a n a l appearing together there)
I think tolerance and inclusion are positive factors and I think they should be applied consistently. Religion and race create enough barriers between humans as it is, if we keep finding ways to pigeon-hole groups we will end up back in the days of Clan warfare.
"Do ya wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang"
Being homosexual is no reason to prevent someone from adopting.
So you see no need to stop homosexuals from adopting.
Do you not see how much hurt both physical and mental that having homosexual partners as their parents would cause to a child?
Mental bullying is far worse than physical, cuts and bruises heal relatively quickly, mental scars take years, never blindly wish that on a child until you are sure the benefits outweigh the pitfalls.
Yeh, yeh, some of your best friends are homosexual, heard it all before.Perhaps the member of my family is also a figment of my imagination also. I find that suggestion highly offensive because it means either that I am lying about my nephew or that I have a complete intolerance towards him which is something I am certain he would find highly offensive and the rest of my family would find quite laughable.
Intolerance of others is still intolerance even when it is political dogma instead of religious dogma.
Of course, your glib comment is a good way of avoiding giving consideration to the fact that others have a right to a different point of view.
I wonder why that doesn’t surprise me? Once again you have clearly demonstrated the point I made in my previous post.
“My view and no other!” is the politics of Dictatorship, but that is only to be expected.
I notice you carefully avoided saying where I have said anything which is in the least homophobic. As usual you are simply seeing what you want to see and not what is actually there.
That is not unusual amongst the dogmatic, it always has been and always will be.
Sorry, scorrie, I don't recall having used any of the phrases or names you have quoted as having been used by me in any threads, quite apart from this one, or having defended their use by others. (I think the particular descripion of people of Oriental Descent you ascribe to me was actually made by Prince Phillip. I'm surprised that anybody would think I was worthy of such a high position and would attract the attention which the comment attracted in the National Media. )
I would be obliged if you can point out when and where I have done such a thing so I can check the facts in order to take any appropriate action.
One again this would appear to be a case of somebody seeing what they want to see rather than what is actually there.
It's an easy "cop out" in order to cause distraction from the issue under discussion.
[quote=fred;195489]You can have any views you want JAWS, you can't force belief on anyone. All the government is doing is to make it illegal for someone to discriminate against someone else.
The PC Pillocks in this world will NEVER stop discrimination, as that is the nature of the beast.
They actively encourage it when it suits as they discriminate against various peoples or groups doing things they don't like.
It is fact that the majority of people view Homosexual practice, in whatever form, as weird, strange or whatever. Every normal person has a view on the subject.
I have my view, which is well known to everybody that knows me, and I will NEVER change it.
Should they be allowed to adopt - NEVER - they should not be allowed anywhere near children.
I am sure that I know many people of "strange" persuasion, but as long as they keep it to themselves, I will not know, and will not discriminate against them. If I got to know and had the power, I would run them out of town.
hello JimH , That would have been my very words. i wholeheartedly agree with you to the letter. at least you have the conviction to stand up and say exactly what you mean. i too shudder to think at the thought of being raised by two homosexuals, in fact the very thought makes my skin creep. 10/10
good honest post.
So you see no need to stop homosexuals from adopting.
None.
Do you not see how much hurt both physical and mental that having homosexual partners as their parents would cause to a child?
No, I see how much hurt both physical and mental attitudes like yours would cause to a child, I can't blame the childs adopted parents for that.
Mental bullying is far worse than physical, cuts and bruises heal relatively quickly, mental scars take years, never blindly wish that on a child until you are sure the benefits outweigh the pitfalls.
Yes I know, I remember when a child who's mother and father wern't married got called all sorts of nasty names at school. The solution wasn't to prevent people who wern't married having children, the solution was for society to lose its prejudices, it doesn't seem to happen now. I don't see why gay couples should be penalised when the fault is in others.
Perhaps the member of my family is also a figment of my imagination also. I find that suggestion highly offensive because it means either that I am lying about my nephew or that I have a complete intolerance towards him which is something I am certain he would find highly offensive and the rest of my family would find quite laughable.
No, I mean it's standard justification, like the "I'm not a racist but..." in the "How true is this" thread.
danc1ngwitch
27-Feb-07, 15:29
we still debating this? Love is still Love...
Live and let live, fairly take and fairly give...
If we were all the same how perect we'd ALL be[lol]
the children involved have a hard enough life and don't need that sort of emotional baggage and anybody willing to put a child through the severe bullying they are going to recieve, (not just at school), are certainly not fit to be parents.
People have mentioned bullying several times in relation to a child and parents "willing to put their child through this". Children get bullied for all sorts of reasons - its by no means certain a child will be bullied for any particular reason even if their parents are homosexual. Do you not think that children in care get bullied, picked on because they have no parents or because they are from a children's home or foster parents? I know for a fact that they do. Severe bullying can be because a child wears glasses, do we not give a child glasses in case they are bullied? A child can be bullied because they have a different accent, do we train a child to speak a certain way so they dont get bullied? What about their name? my kids were picked on because they had an unusual english surname - should i have changed their name? Should i have been branded as an unfit parent because I didnt change their name? Kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons - the way to deal with it is to confront it, support your children and to give them strategies to deal with it and ensure the school fully embraces anti bullying strategies and tackles the prejudice at the centre of the bullying and not just pay them lip service
No, I mean it's standard justification, like the "I'm not a racist but..." in the "How true is this" thread.I have never made any such comment or anything close to it. I have made no mention either for or against either homosexuals themselves or if they should be allowed to adopt or not.
The rush to write my comments off has only served to show that my comment, "You will either bend the knee at the Alter of the Modern Moral Codes or be held up to public ridicule as some sort of vengeful, Dark Age throwback unfit to exist amongst "Right Thinking People", was absolutely spot on.
The knee jerk reaction that anybody who disagrees in even the slightest way with the "Dictat of the Commissariat" must be rooted out, denounced as an dangerous Reactionary and purged. With the current narrow attitudes of certain groups is only to be expected. In that respect little has changed for the last hundred years.
why is the catholic church ( with its own past track record) being allowed to run an adoption agency anyway? I know of 2 Ladies who are currently involved in an active homosexual relationship who care for an adult male and have done for several years ( the adult male has the mental age of about a 6 years old child) both of these ladies care very lovingly for this lad and have provided a very caring environment and stable home life for all parties concerned. I myself by my own addmission, am extremely homophobic, and find the whole consept of homosexuality very distasteful, as probably do many other people, it doesn't make us small minded or bigoted, it just means that we have a different point of view. However i do believe that homosexual couples can offer a loving and caring home to a child/children only because i have seen it for myself. If i was asked to vote on such legislation i have to admit it wouldn't be my first choice to allow homosexuals to adopt children, but i also feel that if all other avenues had been depleted then i would have to agree that homosexuals would not be unfit as adoptive parents. I hope i have made my point of view without having to go to extremes.
danc1ngwitch
27-Feb-07, 18:52
why is the catholic church ( with its own past track record) being allowed to run an adoption agency anyway? I know of 2 Ladies who are currently involved in an active homosexual relationship who care for an adult male and have done for several years ( the adult male has the mental age of about a 6 years old child) both of these ladies care very lovingly for this lad and have provided a very caring environment and stable home life for all parties concerned. I myself by my own addmission, am extremely homophobic, and find the whole consept of homosexuality very distasteful, as probably do many other people, it doesn't make us small minded or bigoted, it just means that we have a different point of view. However i do believe that homosexual couples can offer a loving and caring home to a child/children only because i have seen it for myself. If i was asked to vote on such legislation i have to admit it wouldn't be my first choice to allow homosexuals to adopt children, but i also feel that if all other avenues had been depleted then i would have to agree that homosexuals would not be unfit as adoptive parents. I hope i have made my point of view without having to go to extremes.
fair point xxx
I have never made any such comment or anything close to it. I have made no mention either for or against either homosexuals themselves or if they should be allowed to adopt or not.
So you didn't feel the need to back up your argument by saying you had good friends and a nephew who are homosexual. Strange, I could have sworn you had.
percy toboggan
27-Feb-07, 19:32
It's actually a sound theory Percy and many wounded people have been released from their phobias through becoming aware of their repressed sexuality. Now I'm not saying your a closet poofter but it would take a bit more than a few encounters on a vibrant thread on Caithness.org before I would eliminate the possibility. As for your Manchester United analogy. It's nonsense! The cultural and social circumstances involved in choosing a football team are miles removed from someones sexuality. Your decision to support City was probably taken as a result of family associations or rivalry amongst young boys. It was either City or United. No big deal and no massive taboo surrounding your choice. Sexuality now, that's different and I am still trying to understand your obsession with the difference between your own and someone elses. I dont get it.
.
The chance of any 'encounter' away from this forum is remote gleeber - a fact we can probably both be thankful for - so you'll just have to take my word for it. Relax a little.
The football reference was an attempt to inject a little levity but I should have remembered the ultra-liberals in our midsts are so often devoid a sense of humour.
Your ideas of 'sound theories' are different to mine.
Would a strong public aversion to, and condemnation of bestiality - the practice of becoming too attached, in a literal sense - to farmyard animals, suggest to you that I was secretly longing for intimacy with a Gloucester Old Spot? I'd hope not, but nothing surprises me given your gullibility.
Of course, I do not bracket homo's with those who lie down with dogs, or pigs. I've already expressed a tolerant attitude toward homosexuals.
I just do not believe they should be allowed to adopt.
danc1ngwitch
27-Feb-07, 20:29
and whats wrong wea lovin ur horse:lol:
No, I see how much hurt both physical and mental attitudes like yours would cause to a child, I can't blame the childs adopted parents for that.
Yes I know, I remember when a child who's mother and father wern't married got called all sorts of nasty names at school. The solution wasn't to prevent people who wern't married having children, the solution was for society to lose its prejudices, it doesn't seem to happen now. I don't see why gay couples should be penalised when the fault is in others.
Attitudes like mine? Knowing myself as I do, there is no way I would show any predudice to a child who was being cared for by a gay couple, (not my style)but that doesn't mean have to agree with it.
People like me are not the problem, it's people that "think" they are doing the right thing when in fact all they are doing is causing a whole new set of problems for children that don't have their troubles to seek.
People have mentioned bullying several times in relation to a child and parents "willing to put their child through this". Children get bullied for all sorts of reasons - its by no means certain a child will be bullied for any particular reason even if their parents are homosexual. Do you not think that children in care get bullied, picked on because they have no parents or because they are from a children's home or foster parents? I know for a fact that they do. Severe bullying can be because a child wears glasses, do we not give a child glasses in case they are bullied? A child can be bullied because they have a different accent, do we train a child to speak a certain way so they dont get bullied? What about their name? my kids were picked on because they had an unusual english surname - should i have changed their name? Should i have been branded as an unfit parent because I didnt change their name? Kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons - the way to deal with it is to confront it, support your children and to give them strategies to deal with it and ensure the school fully embraces anti bullying strategies and tackles the prejudice at the centre of the bullying and not just pay them lip service
You are stating the obvious about things kids can get bullied for but why do you wish to add another scenario that kids can get bullied in?
It is absolutely certain that kids will be bullied for having gay parents, that's a fact so they should do all kids a favour and at least don't add to the problem by creating another.
sorry for the double post.:D
Attitudes like mine? Knowing myself as I do, there is no way I would show any predudice to a child who was being cared for by a gay couple, (not my style)but that doesn't mean have to agree with it.
People like me are not the problem, it's people that "think" they are doing the right thing when in fact all they are doing is causing a whole new set of problems for children that don't have their troubles to seek.
I said attitudes LIKE yours. You assume that a child having gay parents is a reason for them to be bullied just as people assumed that a child born out of wedlock was a reason for them to be bullied. As societies attitude to unmarried parents changed the bullying stopped.
Sorry, scorrie, I don't recall having used any of the phrases or names you have quoted as having been used by me in any threads, quite apart from this one, or having defended their use by others. (I think the particular descripion of people of Oriental Descent you ascribe to me was actually made by Prince Phillip. I'm surprised that anybody would think I was worthy of such a high position and would attract the attention which the comment attracted in the National Media. )
I would be obliged if you can point out when and where I have done such a thing so I can check the facts in order to take any appropriate action.
One again this would appear to be a case of somebody seeing what they want to see rather than what is actually there.
It's an easy "cop out" in order to cause distraction from the issue under discussion.
I don't see anywhere where I refer to the phrases quoted as belonging to you, or anyone else for that matter. They are actually a combination of your attitude on one issue, mixed with your attitude on another. I do not have the time to trawl all the posts to find where you support tolerance of immigrants and your defence of your right to call minority groups by anything you see fit. However, I have a memory that has been quoted as exceptional by several neutral observers and I can clearly recall your stance on both threads.
Your claim that I am looking for things that are not there is a fantasy and you yourself are the master of the diatribe that talks a lot but says very little.
The case for the prosecution (or is that persecution) remains a load of old bogeyman talk backed by zero facts, zero logic and zero personal and actual experience.
I have never made any such comment or anything close to it. I have made no mention either for or against either homosexuals themselves or if they should be allowed to adopt or not.
Would it not have been a good idea to outline your feelings on these matters first and then expand on the Spanish Inquisition theory later?
Of course some people love to get fancy phrases such as "Dictat of the Commissariat" into their posts as a matter of priority.
All talk and no substance.
I find all these posts by people who go to such lengths to express their revulsion at homosexuality very sad. Interestingly it is usually men who seem to use the strongest language, as if any expression of understanding or tolerance would somehow make them suspect as closet homosexuals. It's perfectly OK to have friends who are homosexual, either male or female, without people assuming you're the same. Or if they do, that's their problem. Having black friends doesn't make you ever so slightly coloured.
We got over marriage being for the procreation of children a long time ago and what people get up to in their bedrooms is entirely their affair. As someone said earlier, straight people get up to all sorts but generally it's private so nobody starts saying they shouldn't be allowed to either have or adopt children. Maybe some people have led very sheltered lives so don't actually know, or are not aware that they know, many homosexual, bisexual, uncertain gender etc. people. I lived in the south most of my life and until I was in my 20s was completely unaware that there was any such thing as homosexuality (I had a very sheltered upbringing). Over a period I met gay friends who live together - some for much longer than most marriages last these days, some who are devout Christians, some who have been married and had children, some who have changed sex (having been incorrectly classed at birth).
People, and animals, are born in many different variations. No-one, absolutely no-one, has the right to condemn another person because they were born differently. Why should someone who can only love a person of the same gender be condemned to a life without love?
Would it not have been a good idea to outline your feelings on these matters first and then expand on the Spanish Inquisition theory later?
Of course some people love to get fancy phrases such as "Dictat of the Commissariat" into their posts as a matter of priority.
All talk and no substance.I cannot help it if people jump to false conclusions and are intent on reading more into what i said than is actually there. That says more about their prejudice and fixed views than it does about anything I had said.
Had I, and indeed when I did clarify my attitude towards homosexuals it was greeted with the predictable accusation invariably thrown out of "some of my best friends - but". That being expected, I initially did not waste my time oing so until the need arose.
It simply shows that fixed prejudicial views are not simply a one way thing and that replacing one set of absolutes with another is simply to stand still.
As far as I am concerned one set of people with immovable attitudes is no different than another. Both are equal in having prejudicial views.
As I recall, the question of the Catholic Adoption Services being exempted was raised with Westminster by the Scottish Executive. Perhaps they too are to be classed as Homophobic for having done so.
I am still waiting for you to advise me where I made use of any of the phrases or names which you were only too hasty to attribute to me.
Did I make use of such terminology or not? You intimated I did, I would like to know where and when.
danc1ngwitch
27-Feb-07, 23:41
just out of interest... for the blokes who cannot stand the thought of gay men... Do you find two women also repulsive.. or is it a little more acceptable??? even a tad sexy grrrrr :eek:
( if its already in the posts forgive me, if i read every word i'd but fall asleep )[lol]
jekyll n hyde
28-Feb-07, 00:11
i think there is a point there....why is it that men are repulsed by the thought of gay men....but at the same time find gay women exciting....this has puzzled me....and when it comes down to it us women arent really bothered at either....i suppose it could be because we are more open minded....(but then again i a woman what would i know?)....lol[lol]
just out of interest... for the blokes who cannot stand the thought of gay men... Do you find two women also repulsive.. or is it a little more acceptable??? even a tad sexy grrrrr :eek:
( if its already in the posts forgive me, if i read every word i'd but fall asleep )[lol]
I'm afraid That I have not given much thought to the situation you have described. As a general rule if I saw two girls in the street, I doubt I would know any different - I could probably pick out a couple of blokes though, but not always - and that is the point I was making.
If they keep it to themselves, I don't know about it, so it does not affect me. It is the people that broadcast it that I have a problem with.
Having thought a bit about it, I must admit that the thought of two women, has the same effect on me as two men - not nice.
Yes I do agree with you about some of the posts that seem to have become personal.
Having thought a bit about it, I must admit that the thought of two women, has the same effect on me as two men - not nice.
Not nice !!! Can you not just for one moment imagine how it must to be as incapable of finding someone of the opposite sex attractive as you would find it to be attracted to someone of the same sex? It is something you are born with and there are many who have fought against it all their lives, often due to the attitude of their families. They have married, had children, been given all sorts of cruel treatments as children to "straighten them" - nothing makes any difference. Some people choose celibacy, but what if that's not what you want? What then - why should they be condemned to a lonely, loveless life?
Not nice !!! Can you not just for one moment imagine how it must to be as incapable of finding someone of the opposite sex attractive as you would find it to be attracted to someone of the same sex? It is something you are born with and there are many who have fought against it all their lives, often due to the attitude of their families. They have married, had children, been given all sorts of cruel treatments as children to "straighten them" - nothing makes any difference. Some people choose celibacy, but what if that's not what you want? What then - why should they be condemned to a lonely, loveless life?
The way I see it is that when I'm out in town or somewhere and an attractive person of the opposite sex walks by and my head just turns to follow, a homosexual is just someone who's head turns to follow when an attractive person of the same sex walks by. I see no other difference whatsoever, apart from that gay people are just the same as the rest of the population, just as capable of being a parent and with the same paternal/maternal instincts making them want to be parents.
Not nice !!! Can you not just for one moment imagine how it must to be as incapable of finding someone of the opposite sex attractive as you would find it to be attracted to someone of the same sex? It is something you are born with and there are many who have fought against it all their lives, often due to the attitude of their families. They have married, had children, been given all sorts of cruel treatments as children to "straighten them" - nothing makes any difference. Some people choose celibacy, but what if that's not what you want? What then - why should they be condemned to a lonely, loveless life?
I don't have to imagine it, as I don't have a problem with it as long as I don't know about it. I would not have given it a second thought had I not been giving my own feelings on the question asked.
Every person is free to do as they please as far as I am concerned, but if it is rammed down my throat as it has been over the last couple of years, then my original post, as to how I would treat them, stands.
percy toboggan
28-Feb-07, 20:20
i think there is a point there....why is it that men are repulsed by the thought of gay men....but at the same time find gay women exciting....this has puzzled me....and when it comes down to it us women arent really bothered at either....i suppose it could be because we are more open minded....(but then again i a woman what would i know?)....lol[lol]
I think heterosexual men find attractive women in a sexual context are exciting generally, whether they would wish to involve a man , or not. Men might find images of a woman pleasing herself alone, to be quite exciting whereas I do not think many women would like to watch a man doing the same thing.
Therefore thought of two attractive & feminine women cavorting together is an appealing one for many men. Although they might initially be reluctant to join in, if invited . I'm sure most who were not appalled would 'fill their boots' and have a good time.
If both of the women were 'butch' types,masculine looking with hands like motor mechanics and faces like Russian coal miners & they started off in boiler suits then many men would not be as interested, much less excited.
You ladies have to remember that many men are shallow when it comes to assuaging their libido. So, when you get two such blokes of the same ilk the subsequent lack of depth to what follows may well result in an unsuitable environment in which to place vulnerable young people..
danc1ngwitch
28-Feb-07, 20:46
I tend to agree, that women aslong as they are elegant and sexy would be
great to look at.
Oh the possibilities!!!
Women with long hair, brushing against skin, soft and white.
There would be no rules...Suddenly men are on fire...
But you say something like...
Their beards rubbed against the cracks in their over worked faces..
Their rough hands entertwined in the coolness of the night..
ewwww.. nope does nothing for me..:eek:
But that has no say on wether they would make good parents...
I cannot help it if people jump to false conclusions and are intent on reading more into what i said than is actually there. That says more about their prejudice and fixed views than it does about anything I had said.
Had I, and indeed when I did clarify my attitude towards homosexuals it was greeted with the predictable accusation invariably thrown out of "some of my best friends - but". That being expected, I initially did not waste my time oing so until the need arose.
It simply shows that fixed prejudicial views are not simply a one way thing and that replacing one set of absolutes with another is simply to stand still.
As far as I am concerned one set of people with immovable attitudes is no different than another. Both are equal in having prejudicial views.
As I recall, the question of the Catholic Adoption Services being exempted was raised with Westminster by the Scottish Executive. Perhaps they too are to be classed as Homophobic for having done so.
I am still waiting for you to advise me where I made use of any of the phrases or names which you were only too hasty to attribute to me.
Did I make use of such terminology or not? You intimated I did, I would like to know where and when.
I would love it if you would actually address the points I make. Just once would be terrific. I have told you I don't have the time to trawl for an individual post. Can you not accept that simple fact?
I have explained in words that seem easy for me to understand. I did NOT quote your actual words. The phrase "Welcome to the UK Mr Slant-eye Chinky" is not your quote. It is not MY quote. It is a quote that belongs to no person in particular. It is a quote made up from YOUR posts that are well documented as being tolerant towards immigrants and your other posts defending YOUR right to call minority groups by anything YOU see fit.
Now, if you are at all aware of your attitudes on both points then you will know that what I say is true. Surely you can remember YOUR opinions without the need for me to trawl evidence of them.
I suspect that you are well aware of the situation and are hiding behind the usual defensive curtain.
You have yet to make any input whatsoever into whether gay couples make good parents or why they would not be suitableparents. All there is is endless waffle, that has nothing whatever to do with the subject in hand. I think you are a very poor debater because you do not stick to the simple, relevant facts. Instead we get psuedo-intellectual diatribe. You are trying to punch way higher than your capabilities and I find that very disappointing, and stifling towards the quest for true, logical discussion.
Feel free to post your usual vague and irrelevant reply.
percy toboggan
28-Feb-07, 21:24
Women with long hair, brushing against skin, soft and white.
Best point out other skin tones are available....otherwise some of this lot will be calling you a racist !! :) :(
danc1ngwitch
28-Feb-07, 22:25
Woman with long dark hair, perfect bones, one from each country and a stool for the chinese one [lol] ( well how is she gonna reach the alter :roll: )
connieb19
28-Feb-07, 22:31
Woman with long dark hair, perfect bones, one from each country and a stool for the chinese one [lol] ( well how is she gonna reach the alter :roll: )
Theres a great joke in your post but I'll get banned if I tell it lol.
So you didn't feel the need to back up your argument by saying you had good friends and a nephew who are homosexual. Strange, I could have sworn you had.I didn't feel the need originally because I had made no comment whatsoever to indicate I had any problem with either homosexuals or homosexuality. It was only when the impression started to be given, by some, that I was in some way a homophobe in order to present me as an extremist, (a usual tactic by some who wish to ridicule anybody who has differing views) that I indicated that to those who know me the idea I have any misgivings about homosexuality is demonstrable nonsense.
It is not the first time I have come across such underhanded tactics on occasions and I'm sure there will be those who try the same in future.
I don't mind people trying to give others the idea I am some sort of evil extremist, it just shows that such people only know how to dictate what people should think and are incapable of tolerating any other opinions.
I didn't feel the need originally because I had made no comment whatsoever to indicate I had any problem with either homosexuals or homosexuality. It was only when the impression started to be given, by some, that I was in some way a homophobe in order to present me as an extremist, (a usual tactic by some who wish to ridicule anybody who has differing views) that I indicated that to those who know me the idea I have any misgivings about homosexuality is demonstrable nonsense.
It is not the first time I have come across such underhanded tactics on occasions and I'm sure there will be those who try the same in future.
I don't mind people trying to give others the idea I am some sort of evil extremist, it just shows that such people only know how to dictate what people should think and are incapable of tolerating any other opinions.
So you're saying that you are intollerant of people who are intollerant of people who are intollerant?
Scorrie, I know what my beliefs are and I also know what position I have taken in the past.
You are making certain accusations which I find not only to be completely false but also an attempt to indicate, especially to those who are not fully conversant with what I have said in the past , that what I say should be disregarded as that of a bigoted right wing extremist.
I have simply asked you to indicate, in order that others can check for themselves, the places where I have made any such comments. The attitudes you say I am guilty of are either there or is wishful thinking on your behalf if you are unwilling to back them up with something definite then I suggest you do not make them.
To save everybody going right back to the start of the Thread, here is gleeber’s original question in full:-
It was reported in Scotland on Sunday this morning that the Scottish Executive are in talks with Westminster in the hope of allowing The catholic church in Scotland a concession against the recently passed law at Westminster which prohibits all adoption agencies from discriminating against homosexual couples in their desire to adopt chuildren.
The Westminster law allows catholic adoption agencies until 2008 to get their act together and stop discriminating against homosexuals when they place the children in their care.
Should the catholic church in Scotland be allowed this concession to continue discriminating against homesexuals and therefore become immune from prosecution whilst everyone else will have to abide by the law?
My own thoughts are mixed. Over the years I have become more used to the idea that gay relationships are as normal as hetreosexual relationships. The church however has a set of rules drawn up over 2000 years ago which determines how its followers should think about such matters.
One catholic bishop complains that the new law is a sinister attack on the churches values. Whilst I dont agree there's anything sinister in fighting discrimination I do believe he has a point about this being an attack on the churches values and he is right to fight it.
Should the church realign its values with modern day thinking?
The bolds are mine. The question, as I read it, is about differences in views about morality between the Church and the State.
That is the subject I have been addressing. The fact that you and others wish to discuss the rights or wrongs of homosexuality is up to you.
As far as I am concerned I see no difference between the Church being dogmatic about it’s views and the State displaying the same narrow-minded attitudes.
There is a further question which nobody has so far confronted. Who has the right to decide such matters in Scotland, Holyrood or Westminster?
Strangely enough, I see nothing in gleeber’s post which asks for anybody's views about homosexuality and I make no apologies for not being drawn, however much some might wish me to, down that particular route.
Does that make things a little clearer for you?
So you're saying that you are intollerant of people who are intollerant of people who are intollerant?No, I am saying that I find all extreme views, be they held on politics, religion or any other belief system to be equally intolerant.
I find the "My way and no other" brigade, whoever they are, to be equally pathetic and equally destructive whatever they get involved in.
No, I am saying that I find all extreme views, be they held on politics, religion or any other belief system to be equally intolerant.
What all of them?
That's a bit extreme isn't it?
What all of them?
That's a bit extreme isn't it?Not as extreme in my views as some I don't need to mention.
danc1ngwitch
01-Mar-07, 07:42
people feel passionately about this...
OK then maybe i am looking at the loving relationship side of things...
Let me think like a man ... give me another 2 mins...
Nope i don't want to think like a man... better of being me...
a loving relationship that is open and honest, ( well telling the truth ain't hard when you have another to listen ).
Let it be between man or woman, surely can give love to a child...
Parents who drink 4 times a week, surely that ain't right, yet they don't get this ridiculing...
BUT THEN CAN A MAN TEACH A GIRL TO BE A WOMAN???
Oh i dunno ... i will read from now on:roll:
No, I am saying that I find all extreme views, be they held on politics, religion or any other belief system to be equally intolerant.
I find the "My way and no other" brigade, whoever they are, to be equally pathetic and equally destructive whatever they get involved in.
You are absolutely right, I am very happy to be called "pathetic", "Intolerant"
and anything else on this subject, and regardless of what you like to think, the majority of "normal" people feel the same. They are just better at hiding it than I am.
I also feel the same about politically Correct Pillocks. Now there is something DESTRUCTIVE!
percy toboggan
01-Mar-07, 19:08
Parents who drink 4 times a week, surely that ain't right, yet they don't get this ridiculing...
A can of worms here and a whole new thread.
I drink almost every night of the week. Usually a half bottle of red wine or two or three cans of bitter ale. If I couldn't afford it I could do without it.
I have neevr been late for work as a consequence and I enjoy it. I don't think anyone has been 'ridiculed' on the thread so far but feel free to start.
I'll leave you now , glass of moderately expensive French Grenache in hand.
danc1ngwitch
01-Mar-07, 20:23
Percy you will live to 100.... ( pickled )[lol]
weeboyagee
04-Mar-07, 18:08
.....and anything else on this subject, and regardless of what you like to think, the majority of "normal" people feel the same. They are just better at hiding it than I am.
I haven't had much time to get on the boards recently - but now that I have - can I ask a simple question - and give me a simple answer - it's been a hectic past two weeks :rolleyes: - the majority of "normal" people - just exactly what is the definition of a "normal" person? Can I also ask who would "assume" to say the "majority" would "feel the same" but are "better at hiding it than you are"?? The thread material doesn't interest me but your thought mechanism in terms of the "normal" person and the (by default) rest set apart to be abnormal or "not normal" interests me......are you talking about the extremists being not normal no matter what they are extreme in being, saying or thinking?
WBG :confused:
I haven't had much time to get on the boards recently - but now that I have - can I ask a simple question - and give me a simple answer - it's been a hectic past two weeks - the majority of "normal" people - just exactly what is the definition of a "normal" person? Can I also ask who would "assume" to say the "majority" would "feel the same" but are "better at hiding it than you are"?? The thread material doesn't interest me but your thought mechanism in terms of the "normal" person and the (by default) rest set apart to be abnormal or "not normal" interests me......are you talking about the extremists being not normal no matter what they are extreme in being, saying or thinking?
WBG
I have asked the same question in conversations when someone has quoted "normal". They seem to mean people like themselves because they look on themselves as normal. :eek:
P.S. I'm not normal! ;)
P.S. I'm not normal! ;)
Who would want to be?
I haven't had much time to get on the boards recently - but now that I have - can I ask a simple question - and give me a simple answer - it's been a hectic past two weeks :rolleyes: - the majority of "normal" people - just exactly what is the definition of a "normal" person? Can I also ask who would "assume" to say the "majority" would "feel the same" but are "better at hiding it than you are"?? The thread material doesn't interest me but your thought mechanism in terms of the "normal" person and the (by default) rest set apart to be abnormal or "not normal" interests me......are you talking about the extremists being not normal no matter what they are extreme in being, saying or thinking?
WBG :confused:
By normal - I mean exactly that. The majority of the human race is Hetro whatever - not homo. The majority of Teenagers are normal law abiding people. The majority of parents look after and cherish their children. The majority of Foster parents are good for their Foster children. All this and obviously lots and lots more I would call normal. I think you get the message. However normal people are sure to have extremist views on something or other, but as a rule they will keep it to themselves until they have had enough of having something rammed down their throat, as I have homosexuality. Its in the paper, its on ther radio, its on the tele, its on Caithness.org. AS I have said before - they can do what they like as long as they KEEP IT PRIVATE. Neither I, or the majority of normal people want to know about anybodies sexuality.
Now if your idea of normal is different to mine - that's fine, that is the nature of the human being.
danc1ngwitch
04-Mar-07, 23:04
People when faced with a thing that is not classed as the *Norm* will say to others ewwwwwww disgusting etc etc.
They may hide the fact that they might be turned on just a little by horrid stuff.
Now i am no way suggesting that people on here are turned on by homosexuality, ( does nothing for me, not my style ) I am just saying that sometimes we cannot always be free with our talk, for fear of judgement.
And still i think that they could love a child as well as ( norm ) people.
Oh i dislike putting norm people, makes it seem like i am saying that they ain't normal. Wow this is a tricky one:eek:
A "normal" person is one who is not "abnormal".
A "normal" person is one who is not "abnormal".
Define both your terms.
Why is homosexuality shoved in peoples faces at every opportunity, television, newspapers, politics, etc and does anyone really wants to know about what they do or how they live?
Certain politicians trying to get the age of consent for homosexuals down to 16 as they can't corrupt our vulnerable youth quick enough, bunch of perverts if you ask me.
Define both your terms.
Did normal ever exist as a state of being?
Define both your terms.Quite simple really. A person who is "normal" is not "abnormal". A person who is "Abnormal" is not "normal".
It all depends on the presumption people commence with.
[quote=darkman;197929]Why is homosexuality shoved in peoples faces at every opportunity, television, newspapers, politics, etc and does anyone really wants to know about what they do or how they live?
[quote]
Not nearly as much as hetrosexual sex, but I suppose that's normal.
Quite simple really. A person who is "normal" is not "abnormal". A person who is "Abnormal" is not "normal".
It all depends on the presumption people commence with.
The erstwhile Master of Diatribe has reduced himself to semantic cop out. You can do better than that, can't you?
Did normal ever exist as a state of being?
Only in the eyes of the beholder. The problem is how to define normal/abnormal.
I'm sure the majority of people here would define themselves as "normal and right thinking beings" but that's only their opinion.
According to what I glean from talking with others I am neither; I am just me, thank goodness.
Quite simple really. A person who is "normal" is not "abnormal". A person who is "Abnormal" is not "normal".
It all depends on the presumption people commence with.
You were asked to define YOUR terms. That means defining them from your presumptions of normality.
To reply as you have is a pathetic cop-out and a clear indication of someone trying to operate beyond their intelligence.
You talk about people on the boards who keep you on your toes mentally. In my eyes you are on your knees mentally. Try answering the question properly for a change, instead of the usual psuedo-intellectual keech.
There's nothing "pseudo-intellectual" about it. I am aware of what you are trying to demonstrate.
The fact that I have not given you the answer you seem so desperate to find is your problem, not mine.
There's nothing "pseudo-intellectual" about it. I am aware of what you are trying to demonstrate.
The fact that I have not given you the answer you seem so desperate to find is your problem, not mine.
Dear dear me.
At least he answered you Scorrie, albeit in an increasingly cowardly way. He who has nothing real to say should perhaps say nothing!
<snip> He who has nothing real to say should perhaps say nothing!
..and where would the Org be if we followed that advice?? ;)
Seems to me that somebody is getting a bit touchy aren't they?
Or have I missed something?
..and where would the Org be if we followed that advice?? ;)
He who knows, says nowt. You're right Saveman.
I've just one thing to say about that, "Nowt!"
percy toboggan
06-Mar-07, 20:27
We need to take stock, and remember that not everything which is 'natural' is 'normal'
Hair lips/Psoriasis/stunning good looks/arthritic hips at fifty/Homosexuality/superb muscle definition without effort/ etc. etc.
Natural is not of neccessity normal.
Anything natural is valid and has to be acceptable. When it's pushed as desirable or even 'normal' when it clearly isn't it is time to kick against it.
[quote=darkman;197929]Why is homosexuality shoved in peoples faces at every opportunity, television, newspapers, politics, etc and does anyone really wants to know about what they do or how they live?
[quote]
Not nearly as much as hetrosexual sex, but I suppose that's normal.
Heterosexuality isnormal but I agree that in general there is too much sex of whatever kind portrayed on television.
We need to take stock, and remember that not everything which is 'natural' is 'normal'
Hair lips/Psoriasis/stunning good looks/arthritic hips at fifty/Homosexuality/superb muscle definition without effort/ etc. etc.
Natural is not of neccessity normal.
Anything natural is valid and has to be acceptable. When it's pushed as desirable or even 'normal' when it clearly isn't it is time to kick against it.
I understand what you are tying to say but the problem with that definition is that it changes over time.
40 years ago it was 'normal' to expect the wife to stay at home and not work does that make it 'abnormal' or something to 'kick against' that women can have a successful career.
It was also 'normal' for boys to outperform girls and now it seems to have come full circle.
It is harder to kick against some things more than others.
percy toboggan
06-Mar-07, 22:05
I understand what you are tying to say but the problem with that definition is that it changes over time.
40 years ago it was 'normal' to expect the wife to stay at home and not work does that make it 'abnormal' or something to 'kick against' that women can have a successful career.
It was also 'normal' for boys to outperform girls and now it seems to have come full circle.
It is harder to kick against some things more than others.
I hear what you're saying too.
It's still not 'normal' for women to have successful 'careers'. They usually muddle through a working life like many of us blokes. Often they'd rather be at home and who can blame them? Most do not earn big money - quite the contrary.
My initial point was really comparing 'natural' features and tendencies rather than any personal choice driven by socio-economic circumstances or desires. Much less the quest which drives some women to strive for workplace 'success' I mean it's 'normal' for young men to drive faster than older men but this does not justify recklessness.
I hear what you're saying too.
It's still not 'normal' for women to have successful 'careers'. They usually muddle through a working life like many of us blokes. Often they'd rather be at home and who can blame them? Most do not earn big money - quite the contrary.My friends and neighbours have successful careers. You're older than me, you live in different circumstances and I think you are generalising beyond your experience. Women are beginning to rule the roost in more and more professions. Many men are in denial over it.
My friends and neighbours have successful careers. You're older than me, you live in different circumstances and I think you are generalising beyond your experience. Women are beginning to rule the roost in more and more professions. Many men are in denial over it.
Women have been ruling the roost since the game began only now they are coming out from behind their men and doing it themselves. What a wonderful job they have been doing. I don't think so!!!!
..and where would the Org be if we followed that advice?? ;)
When someone is talking without saying anything, their contribution to debate is zero and so it matters not whether they say something or not. That is entirely different from someone who engages properly and is asked to be silent simply because their views are different. Now THAT would indeed be a sad thing for the Org.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.