It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic church and gay adoption.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I'm Pro Gay marriage, and I'm Pro Gay adoption I am however against either taking place within an institute specificaly connected to a theology or belief that is against either.

I fail to understand why a gay couple would want to get married into or indeed subscribe to a theology that specifically states that their relationship goes against it's doctrine.

To parallel some other peoples points, It would be like me demanding that I be allowed to adopt from a KKK adoption agency or get married within the Muslim faith even though I am not a Muslim.

I don't believe in God, but if I want to get married I can have a civil ceremony, why on earth should I demand the right to be married in the eyes of a God I don't believe in ? it seems pointless.

The Catholic church has certain views. I disagree with their views as is my right and thats why I'm not a Catholic, why I wouldn't get married in a Catholic church, using a catholic ceremony and subsequently adopt a catholic child from a catholic adoption agency.

They have a right to their idiot belief system to regect those who do not subscribe to it.
If we start saying anyone can do anything because if someone says they cant its discrimination then we end up with a hemoginised society where the differences that make us an interesting and unique species have no meaning.

Frankly I'd like to see it taken further. I don't see why resteraunts should provide a vegetarian option, I don't see why prejudiced managers shouldn't not employ someone on the grounds of race, or sexuality, or religion. Such people are in a minority and will die out far quicker if we just let them get on with it than if we keep forcing them to subscribe to belief systems they don't hold.




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spuggy
I don't see why prejudiced managers shouldn't not employ someone on the grounds of race, or sexuality, or religion. Such people are in a minority and will die out far quicker if we just let them get on with it than if we keep forcing them to subscribe to belief systems they don't hold.


Well it's a notion which is not without merit but many would justifiably argue that such prejudice is still going strong after a couple of thousand years of developing civilisation, (of some sort or another), so there is little reason to believe that they will die out any time soon.

What progress has been made in removing unwarranted discrimination from society has very largely happened because of the legal framework that has been in place since WWII.

More importantly, we would like to believe that we are now sophisticated enough to recognise the injustices associated with such discrimination so how could we morally justify standing by and allowing it to continue rather than actively seeking to prevent it as we generally do have the tools and the political will to do so?

[edit on 30-1-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spuggy
If we start saying anyone can do anything because if someone says they cant its discrimination then we end up with a hemoginised society where the differences that make us an interesting and unique species have no meaning.

Frankly I'd like to see it taken further. I don't see why resteraunts should provide a vegetarian option, I don't see why prejudiced managers shouldn't not employ someone on the grounds of race, or sexuality, or religion. Such people are in a minority and will die out far quicker if we just let them get on with it than if we keep forcing them to subscribe to belief systems they don't hold.


I dont understand what these two paragraphs mean!

Assuming that the word you are trying to use is homogenised then you seem to be disproving yourself. In the first paragraph you appear to be supporting a varied society full of individuals, then in the second paragraph you are supporting some sort of fascist system by which racial, religious and sexual minorities are "killed off" by unfair conditions. What do you mean?

Also your assertation that gay people won't go to a catholic adoption agency because they dont want a catholic child has definate flaws. I myself know a gay person brought up in the catholic church and still calls herself catholic. Secondly not every child from a catholic adoption agency will be catholic, many maybe babies who obviously have no religious beliefs.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
"What do you mean?"

I think it's fairly simple, I mean, if we don't allow people to discriminate we don't allow them the opportunity to discover / explain the folly in their own arguments, We just lock them into imposed beliefs which causes them to become more stubborn and pig headed.

You also should bear in mind that I come from two separate perspectives. I believe in diversity of belief and freedom of speech, I also believe that allowing arseholes this right makes it easier to lynch them for being arse holes.

“I myself know a gay person brought up in the catholic church and still calls herself catholic.”

I’m afraid your Gay friend is utterly deluded. I also Have a Gay friend who also happens to be Irish and also happens to have been brought up catholic. Luckily after years of telling her she was a moron for subscribing to the theology she got rid of her faith as it clearly went against her life style choice. I suggest you do the same with yours.

Catholics are delusional. Gay Catholics are delusional and stupid.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spuggy
I think it's fairly simple, I mean, if we don't allow people to discriminate we don't allow them the opportunity to discover / explain the folly in their own arguments, We just lock them into imposed beliefs which causes them to become more stubborn and pig headed.

You also should bear in mind that I come from two separate perspectives. I believe in diversity of belief and freedom of speech, I also believe that allowing arseholes this right makes it easier to lynch them for being arse holes.


Your argument is clearly pretty pathetic. If everyone had views like you the gay and racial rights movements would never have occured. If everyone had views like you the Nazis would have wiped the Jews and Romas from Europe and the KKK would have removed the black people from America.

Stop being so weak, if you are offended by prejudice then do something about it and take a stand, dont just let people continue their fascism because they are clearly not going to let it go. People who are repulsed by black people arent likely to mix with them, learn about their culture and then change their mind. A homophobe isnt likely to socialise with a gay person and alter their ways.

The only way to stop prejudice is to stop the prejudiced being, in your words, "arse-holes".



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I think something like adoption has to be so entwined with the government, it's almost impossible to decouple the two, creating a problem for well meaning religious organization who want to get involved..

From hearing about what happened in Massachusetts, the Catholic adoption program was extremely good at finding homes for harder to place children such as older kids and kids with developmental problems. Since the state started to recognize gay marriages, the church legally had to view gay and straight marriages equally and refused to do so.

Whatever side you think is at fault, you must agree it will be these children who will suffer.

[edit on 1/30/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Whatever side you think is at fault, you must agree it will be these children who will suffer.


- Well there's the real part in this that must be looked after above all.

My problem is that even though I am not one of the regular targets of prejudice I reject the notion that you have to be to feel offended by it, prejudice offends me.

I want as little of it in my society as possible and I do not accept that private religious beliefs should excuse people in their public behaviour to each other.

But this isn't a 'thought Police state' anyone is entitled to say what they like in the privacy of their own home etc etc but in commercial and public life I think we have a right to demand certain minimum standards of each other.

Institutionalised prejudice is something we should not tolerate IMO and if those standards cannot be met then I think we have the right to demand change.

As I have repeatedly pointed out -

the Catholic Adoption Agency is a body in receipt of public money that provides a public service, taking children from local authority care and placing them with adoptive parents of any or no religion; this activity is not intrinsic to its religious belief or practice.

Therefore the state is entitled to insist that the activity is in accordance with the laws of the land.

www.guardian.co.uk...

This is public money being used in pursuit of a public service (taking children from local authority care) and which is not something intrinsic to the RC faith.
They are happy to place these kids with any body of any or no religion but will not even give any consideration to gay people.

I find that wrong and offensive and I want my taxpayers money to have nothing to do with it.
We can surely find a better way than to give in to a moral blackmail which seeks to threaten the children's possible well-being if 'we' don't back off.

The problem is that if the RC Church really want to try and go toe to toe with our Government then OK, we'll open this up to examine the full ins and outs.
Cos if folks really want to get into the ethics, morality and potentials for harm there's plenty in the really not-to-distant at all 'background' to call into question the behaviour and suitability of certain parts of the RC Church regarding children and particularly adoption
(particularly when it comes to the abuse and intimidation of single mothers here in Ireland and the forced adoptions that went on).

The history is not one of blemish-free selflessness and service and I am far from convinced that all would mourn the passing of such 'service'.

Rather than involve themselves in politics (which would be especially stupid and which is a stance from which they can only suffer great damage) they really ought to be working out a suitable compromise.
I doubt it is beyond them if they have a will.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   

particularly when it comes to the abuse and intimidation of single mothers here in Ireland and the forced adoptions that went on).


I watched the film about the Magdelane Sisters recently and could hardly believe this kind of thing could happen in relatively modern times so...yes the church is hardly above suspicion or beyond reproach in this area. But I'd hate to see genuinly good work done by the Catholic church tainted by it's murkier past.
You are also right that if they are being publicly funded they have an obligation to follow the law and not sidestep, I didn't know that. I do though hope that the childrens welfare remains paramount.

PS Thanks for the u2u Smickey, much appreciated.







 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join