Catholics crucify homosexuals?

[gleeber]

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]

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

[Torvaig]

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.

[_Ju_]

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]

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]

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.

[Torvaig]

"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.

[obiron]

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.

[johno]

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.

[Sandra]

"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.

[_Ju_]

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]

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]

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.

[rockchick]

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.

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!

[johno]

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.

with you 100% on that caithness lad

[caithness lad]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.