Catholics, Homosexuals, Discrimination & Adoption

cjd · Jan 23, 2007

So today the Catholic Church finally came out on their position on the new equality legislation.

They say that they want to be able to turn away adoption requests from same sex couples. Their view is that because they hold certain beliefs that the law should not apply to them.

They are also threatening to close all their agencies if the law is not changed.

To my mind, this means that they are prepared to put their irrational beliefs ahead of their christian duty to look after the needs of suffering children.

Just a thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6289301.stm

Arhiann · Jan 23, 2007

Do you think same sex couple adopting is OK? I struggle with that a bit. I'm not sure what I think, but I can't see that it's right, but it appears to be discrimination to prevent it. Not sure.

Convince me

cjd · Jan 23, 2007

I really don't know what I think about same sex adoption; up till now it hadn't occurred to me that it happened. It doesn't 'feel right' to me but that wasn't my point.

The issue here is that we now have a law preventing discrimination of this kind - why should the Catholic church be exempt from it?

I have a belief that I should be able to do 40mph in a 30mph zone; I doubt my belief will get me off the fine.

Optegris · Jan 23, 2007

I don't agree with the same sex adoption for various reasons, I'm not homophobic by any stretch of the imagination, I just don't think it's right..

But in the same vein I don't think anyone should be above the law regardless of their own beliefs. It's tyhe same case of allowing/not allowing religious symbols at work, burkhas (sic) etc.

Arhiann · Jan 23, 2007

I'm not sure that refusing to allow same sex couples to adopt quite constitutes "putting irrational beliefs ahead of Christian duty to look after the needs of suffering children".

I would think that a churchgoer would consider that allowing a same sex couple to look after a child is anything but Christian, and that the Christian thing to do would be to continue to look after them in the environment they are currently in.

I need an expert on irrational beliefs; where is Steve when you need him.

.Spiralling. · Jan 23, 2007

To say "churchgoers would consider allowing a same sex couple to look after a child is anything but Christian" is a bit of a generalisation in my view. Whilst the Catholic church clearly has issues with homosexuality, there are Protestant and Anglican churches which are far more enlightened. Not all Christians would have a problem with this.

I actually know several same sex couples who are bringing up children and doing a very fine job of it. When you see the mess some (many) heterosexual couples make of bringing up children, I think we should focus less on people's sexuality and more on their ability to offer the care, attention and unconditional love that children need.

cjd · Jan 23, 2007

Arhiann said:
I need an expert on irrational beliefs; where is Steve when you need him.

Steve isn't an expert in irrational beliefs; he's an expert irrational believer.

Jan 23, 2007

You know how to start the long threads don't you CJD

Firstly , I don't actually hold the belief that the Catholic church is a christian church, but thats another subject for debate, however in this instance I would stand by them in the issue of same sex marriage and adoption of children by same sex couples. For a christian this goes against the word of God as he created man and woman to be the union of mankind. Not man and man nor woman and woman. (Check the plumbing)
To bring up a child in a same sex 'relationship' is unatural. It can only bring confusion to the child and put the child at risk in some situations of ridicule and abuse.

I will go into this further if you want me to but I will leave it at that for now.

Jan 23, 2007

Oh and just as a throw away comment. Gods word says that Christians should obey Goverment as they are put in place by him to bring law and order however Christians can and do oppose laws that are in contravention to the Bible.

leemason · Jan 23, 2007

I am not christian or religious at all. I am in two minds on this issue however. If it can genuinly be said that the bible condemns same sex relationships then the Catholics, by their own rules, obviously have a good reason to fight their corner. However, if they do win does this open the floodgates for other religious to do certain things (or not as the case may be) because they say it is part of their belief?

cjd · Jan 23, 2007

hedgehog0045 said:
Oh and just as a throw away comment. Gods word says that Christians should obey Goverment as they are put in place by him to bring law and order however Christians can and do oppose laws that are in contravention to the Bible.

That's not a throw away comment - that goes to the heart of it.

This is what the Catholic Church is saying. They say that they will not allow adoption by same sex couples. That position is now illegal under the new equality legislation.

If they continue to take that position, their state funding will be removed for the adoption centres and they will close. If they fund them themselves, they will be prosecuted and be closed.

Are there no homesexuals in your 'church'? Rather oddly, the Catholic Church (which is indeed Christian) is riddled with them.

CG Effect · Jan 23, 2007

Too push a child on a swing and make food for it does it have to be a man and a woman. What happens when two women are together and they push the swing does the child stay still or does the earth stop turning? If they read a story to their child does he or she hear it backwards?

Some rules are totally stupid I'm not gay I just like to stick up for them because their are far too many narrow minded people in this world trying to stop homeless kids getting a good life.

Arhiann · Jan 23, 2007

.Spiralling. said:
To say "churchgoers would consider allowing a same sex couple to look after a child is anything but Christian" is a bit of a generalisation in my view. .

Well, to be fair I didn't actually say that did I? It's out of context. What I said wasn't a statement of fact now was it? I have limited experience of Christians, but those that I do have regular contact with tend to take the book literally.

.Spiralling. said:
Whilst the Catholic church clearly has issues with homosexuality, there are Protestant and Anglican churches which are far more enlightened. Not all Christians would have a problem with this..

And I don't see how this can be. I'm pretty certain that homosexuality and Christianity are mutually exclusive, though I have to confess I haven't had much cause to read the book recently.

The last time I bothered to delve was shortly after a relative's suicide. I always think about theism a bit more when someone dies, though I still don't believe.

.Spiralling. said:
I actually know several same sex couples who are bringing up children and doing a very fine job of it. When you see the mess some (many) heterosexual couples make of bringing up children, I think we should focus less on people's sexuality and more on their ability to offer the care, attention and unconditional love that children need

Doesn't mean it's right though does it. You're wrong in saying that many hetero couples make a mess though. Parenting isn't an exact science, and I'll hazard a guesss that about 95% of parents can honestly say they did the best they could. Equally a same sex couple could say the same, but it seems to me that any right minded individual would have to concede that a child placed with a hetero couple of equal ability to a same sex couple would be in a better position.

CG Effect said:
Too push a child on a swing and make food for it does it have to be a man and a woman. What happens when two women are together and they push the swing does the child stay still or does the earth stop turning? If they read a story to their child does he or she hear it backwards?

No, of course not, but given the stringent standards that foster parents have to meet, it seems to make more sense to me to relax these slightly than to allow a same sex couple to adopt. Children are the result of a male and female union, and for a same sex couple to bring them up doesn't seem right.

.Spiralling. · Jan 23, 2007

I don't understand why a child placed with a hetero couple of equal ability to a same sex couple would be in a better position. This doesn't follow at all. Sexuality has nothing to do with ability to bring up a child in a loving and caring environment. It has nothing to do with whether those people can instill responsible attitudes and values in that child as it's growing up.

Last time I checked, the Roman Catholic Church most definitely is Christian. And there are Christian churches who are far more accepting of homosexuality, regardless of what the Bibole says on the matter. The bible also states that it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7) and that someone working on the Sabbath should be put to death. Doesn't mean that today's Christians practice or agree with these teachings.

cjd · Jan 23, 2007

What we're actually seeing here is a state vs indivulal vs religious power struggle.

The christians managed to change BA's dress policy and the muslims are having a go with the hijab.

The gay rights lot have got equality and marriage into statute.

By-and-large that all seems to be a 'good thing' to me. The less time we take worrying about inconsequetial stuff the better as far as I'm concerned.

But this adoption thing will make the lives of disadvantaged children worse if one side doesn't give way.

Chris H · Jan 23, 2007

The adoption system, though akin to a supertanker without a pilot does work. For many years the Catholic adoption agencies have been fulfilling a duty and a service and whenever things arose that were against their beliefs they simply referred them to other agencies.

What we have now is a government bringing in a law that will create absolute chaos in the social system. Catholic, and Christian agencies make up a huge part of all the social services we have in this country. If they all pulled out or were excluded there would be absolute chaos. One big problem with adoption and fostering is the lack of ethnic and especially muslim families willing to come forward. With the muslim theology being even more 'conservative' towards homosexuality the government are storing up trouble for the future.

The reason for this law is not to improve things for society, agencies or the children but for the labour party to impose their own worldview upon a society through legislation and the judiciary and to close down free speech and honest and open debate.

I'm a foster carer and I have experienced first hand the imposition of political correctness within the social services system and how it seeks to exclude those who do not toe the orthodox socialist view. Let slip that you may not agree with celebrating diversity in all it's forms and you won't make the grade.

It's a shame that the government has brought this law in. At leat with old labour they wore their intentions on their sleeves. This new lot have twigged that they can get the same result by hiding their true motives with the added bonus of lining their pockets at the same time. I used to be in the Labour Party a good number of years ago. Thank God I jumped ship!

The rights or wrongs of same sex adoption etc is not the point of the law, it's the imposition of a law to deter the current working out of a free conscience that has been part and parcel of the involvement of the churches in social care for hundred of years in this country.

fastfences · Jan 23, 2007

.Spiralling. said:
The bible also states that it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7) and that someone working on the Sabbath should be put to death. Doesn't mean that today's Christians practice or agree with these teachings.

And this highlights one very crucial point: that people choose to be selective in their applications of which verses of the Bible apply in today's world, and which verses may be construed to apply to nearly any given topic.

Cheers, Nigel

Arhiann · Jan 23, 2007

.Spiralling. said:
I don't understand why a child placed with a hetero couple of equal ability to a same sex couple would be in a better position. This doesn't follow at all. Sexuality has nothing to do with ability to bring up a child in a loving and caring environment. It has nothing to do with whether those people can instill responsible attitudes and values in that child as it's growing up.

You're quoting out of context *again*. These are my thoughts. I don't know what's right or wrong. What I do know though is that this is a relatively new phenomenom, and the previous state of affairs was considered acceptable. There aren't any long term studies into this and you won't know the true effects of this kind of upbringing for 30, 40 or 50 years. We are the sum of our experiences. Is it really correct that we are experimenting with children?

It's really quite easy to understand though, and it has nothing to do with sexuality. Well, it has nothing to do with sexuality provided you don't wear your sexuality on your sleeve (which would be a really bad thing). It's about balance. Yin and yang and all that. There is evidence to suggest that either situation is better, but it makes sense to me that that a male/female parental union is the state of affairs intended by nature, and who are we to argue with nature.

Nature has a habit of rearing and biting you onthe backside if you mess with it.

.Spiralling. said:
Last time I checked, the Roman Catholic Church most definitely is Christian. And there are Christian churches who are far more accepting of homosexuality, regardless of what the Bibole says on the matter. The bible also states that it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7) and that someone working on the Sabbath should be put to death. Doesn't mean that today's Christians practice or agree with these teachings.

And if memory serves, that you can't wear clothes made of two fibres simultaneously. Could be wrong there, I'm not sure; it's been a while. The way I see it though, you can't pick and choose from "the book". That's just my view. It's not relevant here though.

The church are presumably saying no because of the book. I say no for a different reason. Impressionable minds are not to be experimented with.

Ozzy · Jan 23, 2007

ChrisH makes a true valid point of what may be the true purpose of this legislation, but going back to the same-sex adoption rules.
I've just had a conversation with a very good gay friend of mine who I have known for a good many years. He said to me a while back that he envied me as I have something he will never have, and that is children. I raised the subject of adoption when it wasn't legal and he said he woudl never do it as he feels it is wrong. I asked him to explain and he replied with "could you image the grief the kid would get at school? I could never do that to a child".
That is the opinion of a gay man, and I have to say I agree with him. I have nothing against homosexuality as I have a small number of gay friends (male and female), but some "parents" can be selfish in their thoughts when it comes to having children. They want children because they want children, and sometimes don't consider the affect they may have on the children.

Yes a counter argument may be that its a sad world that others would ridicule the child for having gay "parents", but there is nothing we can do about that today. That is life and that is just the way it is, children can be gruel especially at school. The abuse the children can receive at school will then go on to affect them in later life, and will also affect their relationship with their parent by resenting what they have done to them being adopting them.
Yes it is a shame, but that is how I honestly see it going.

Hayles · Jan 23, 2007

Ozzy said:
ChrisH makes a true valid point of what may be the true purpose of this legislation, but going back to the same-sex adoption rules.
I've just had a conversation with a very good gay friend of mine who I have known for a good many years. He said to me a while back that he envied me as I have something he will never have, and that is children. I raised the subject of adoption when it wasn't legal and he said he woudl never do it as he feels it is wrong. I asked him to explain and he replied with "could you image the grief the kid would get at school? I could never do that to a child".
That is the opinion of a gay man, and I have to say I agree with him. I have nothing against homosexuality as I have a small number of gay friends (male and female), but some "parents" can be selfish in their thoughts when it comes to having children. They want children because they want children, and sometimes don't consider the affect they may have on the children.

Yes a counter argument may be that its a sad world that others would ridicule the child for having gay "parents", but there is nothing we can do about that today. That is life and that is just the way it is, children can be gruel especially at school. The abuse the children can receive at school will then go on to affect them in later life, and will also affect their relationship with their parent by resenting what they have done to them being adopting them.
Yes it is a shame, but that is how I honestly see it going.

Absolutely spot on! It's all right saying these children will have a better time in a loving family home (which a gay couple could no doubt provide) than in, say, a short term foster home, but this is the real world and there's a very high chance they'll suffer hell at school.

H

Arhiann · Jan 23, 2007

Hayles said:
Absolutely spot on! It's all right saying these children will have a better time in a loving family home (which a gay couple could no doubt provide) than in, say, a short term foster home, but this is the real world and there's a very high chance they'll suffer hell at school.

H

It would be far better to relax the standards a little on which families are acceptable as foster parents. I have direct experience of both short and long term fostering, and the hoops you have to jump through are such that almost nobody wants to go through the selection process.

I don't honestly think you could convince me that a same sex parental arrangement could ever be better than a heterosexual arangement, this is what nature intended.

An Oasis · Jan 23, 2007

Why not have same sex parents!

My wife has an employee who, with her partner have Had IVF, in order to conceive. They have lovely twins and seem to be great parents.

They re going through all the normal problems, its all hassle for them now but later.

Im not going to have a pop at Religion in this thread but well Nationalism & R biggest killers of all time...

cjd · Jan 23, 2007

Interesting 'off the record' comment by a cabinet minister earlier tonight.

"It wasn't so long ago that it was legal to put 'No Blacks' signs up in B&Bs - we're not going to be blackmailed by Catholic bigotry either"

Arhiann · Jan 23, 2007

An Oasis said:
Why not have same sex parents!

This has been covered from several dfferent angles and has been answered already.

An Oasis said:
My wife has an employee who, with her partner have Had IVF, in order to conceive. They have lovely twins and seem to be great parents.

Are they same sex then? IVF seems a strange option for a same sex couple.
Assuming they are the same gender, I won't be around in 50-60 years time when the experiment concludes.

An Oasis said:
Im not going to have a pop at Religion in this thread but well Nationalism & R biggest killers of all time...

I think Malaria may have you there.

Chris H · Jan 24, 2007

Arhiann said:
I think Malaria may have you there.

With a philosophical system such as communism coming a close second maybe?

Cornish Steve · Jan 24, 2007

The expert irrational believer has showed up.

I was travelling today, so now's the first opportunity I've had to visit the forums. I'm travelling tomorrow too, so you have ample time to villify my comments without response.

As always, I'm quite the maverick on this topic. There's a lesbian couple in our neighbourhood with a daughter in my son's class at school. They are model parents; in fact, they are more supportive of their daughter than most other parents. You really have to admire their commitment.

Here's my distinction. Yes, the Christian faith states categorically and without reservation that homosexual behaviour is wrong. So, churches should have the right to impose discipline on church members who violate that belief - even asking them to leave the church if it comes to it. However, the church - and Christians in general - do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others. On this and many other points, I strongly disagree with vocal Christian "politicians" who make fools of themselves trying to do just this. It breeds intolerance, it causes a backlash, and - frankly - it's not Christ-like.

The bible teaches that adultery is wrong too, but Jesus associated with adulterers, befriended them, and "loved" them (in a genuine sense). So, in like manner, Christians today should be demonstrating love to gays, not condemning them. They should reach out to them, help them, befriend them, "love" them. Now, if gays choose to join a church, they too must respect the church's teaching about their behaviour. Maybe it takes time, but maybe that's the "thorn in their side" that must be addressed.

So, the Catholic church has every right to impose a policy as it relates to church activities and church ventures. In society in general, though, I don't think it has that right.

By the way, a few years back, the gay rights movement used anti-discrimination laws to force a church to accept a gay organist. This, in my opinion, is outrageous. Our world gets by when the oil of tolerance is applied by all. Tolerance, though, does not mean acceptance. Please - let's not have the government force its views on churches. This is why the US established the principle of "separation of church and state" in the first place.

As for equating our treatment of gays with the treatment of blacks, there's merit to this argument in the social context. In the context of the church, though, it's quite different. We're not talking about ethnicity; we're talking about behaviour. As for arguing that some people have a natural tendency to be gay ("it's in their genes"), I'd counter that some people have a tendency to lie, to murder, to steal, etc., but this doesn't make it right. We all have some tendencies that are wrong, and the answer is not to change our morality and simply declare them to be right.

OK, Mr. CJD. Can't wait to read your responses when I get home later in the week.

Rob Holmes · Jan 24, 2007

cjd said:
To my mind, this means that they are prepared to put their irrational beliefs ahead of their christian duty to look after the needs of suffering children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6289301.stm

cjd - I'm interested..

Do you think Christian/Muslim/Jewish/'a.n.other religion' doctors should be forced to carry out abortions even though it is against their beliefs?

Rob

Rhyl Lightworks · Jan 24, 2007

goldctrsteve said:
I'd counter that some people have a tendency to lie, to murder, to steal, etc., but this doesn't make it right. We all have some tendencies that are wrong, and the answer is not to change our morality and simply declare them to be right.

To lie, murder or steal is a crime which affects other people. Being gay is not.
Barrie

Arhiann · Jan 24, 2007

To each their own, but it still doesn't make it right. At best it's a kludge of the available materials. They weren't designed to go together like that.

Russetk · Jan 24, 2007

Cripes, i find it very hard to believe that people still think like this.

I have a lot of gay friends. Some of these gay friends have adopted or fostered children. One couple have adopted two older children, who probably would never have had a chance at a family life as they had been in care for too long and few people want older children. It was very difficult at first but they are fanatastic parents with kids who are thriving and happy and loved. And to be honest its very difficult having your own baby at first. We ought to be actively encouraging people to adopt, there are loads of kids who would love a family and a chance to be normal.

Yes it can cause problems as you grow up (im from a family where lots of people are bisexual and my father is a T.V. amongst other things) but once you get past your teens, you realise how lucky you where, and life is hard anyway its easier to learn to deal with that when your young than when you grow up and suddenly discover age 25 that the world isnt a nice place.

I don't think it really matters who the parents are as long as they look after their children, put them first and give them love warmth and stability. I know far too many hetrosexual couples who cant do that. Who use their children as pawns in power struggles, who show little or no intrest in their offspring. Which is worse being brought up by a loving gay couple or ignored by parents who don't give a damn.

I personally think its time organised religon was put down. It seems to be of increasingly little value, and cause a great deal of friction bewteen groups of people. I can only see it getting worse. A friend who is gay, came out to his church, they came round his house burnt his books and tried to save him (involved him being tied to a chair whilst they recited the bible at him) and then threw him out and wont even acknowledge him if they pass him in the street!

Do you think Christian/Muslim/Jewish/'a.n.other religion' doctors should be forced to carry out abortions even though it is against their beliefs?

No not really but if they are in that position they chose it. You do get a choice as to what field of medicine you go into, and if they don't agree with performing procedures shouldn't have gone into that speciality. What they absolutley should not be doing is preventing women having abortions because they don't agree with them (you need the consent of two doctors to have one).

Arhiann · Jan 24, 2007

goldctrsteve said:
so you have ample time to villify my comments without response..

Vilify is a bit harsh. I'll just make same vicious and defamatory statements about you if that's ok?

goldctrsteve said:
As always, I'm quite the maverick on this topic. There's a lesbian couple in our neighbourhood with a daughter in my son's class at school. They are model parents; in fact, they are more supportive of their daughter than most other parents. You really have to admire their commitment.

They aren't, technically, parents though are they. Well, I guess one of them probably is. That's semantics though. I don't doubt that they could do a very good job, but I struggle to see that the arrangement that that child is subject to can be better than an equally loving and supportive arrangement parented by a male/female union. That is, after all, what nature intended.

goldctrsteve said:
The bible teaches that adultery is wrong too, but Jesus associated with adulterers, befriended them, and "loved" them (in a genuine sense). So, in like manner, Christians today should be demonstrating love to gays, not condemning them. They should reach out to them, help them, befriend them, "love" them. Now, if gays choose to join a church, they too must respect the church's teaching about their behaviour. Maybe it takes time, but maybe that's the "thorn in their side" that must be addressed..

Really? I though the book said you should stone them to death. Not sure though, you'll be better informed than I.

goldctrsteve said:
So, the Catholic church has every right to impose a policy as it relates to church activities and church ventures. In society in general, though, I don't think it has that right.

Just to clarify, are you including their adoption policy as a church activity (which is what it appears to be to me since the adoption serivce is a church activity), or as policy imposed on society? You're a little unclear here I think.

goldctrsteve said:
By the way, a few years back, the gay rights movement used anti-discrimination laws to force a church to accept a gay organist. This, in my opinion, is outrageous.

This is one of the inherent problems with discrimination laws. They are abused on a regular basis and organisations dance around them for fear of prosecution (Dudley Pig). We're back to the argument about discrimination again; quite simply legislation isn't the answer.

Interestingly, it turns out the Anglican Church isn't quite as progressive as expected. Quite how they can justify their stance I don't know, but it smacks of hypocrisy.

Rob

cjd · Jan 24, 2007

IT Help Direct said:
cjd - I'm interested..

Do you think Christian/Muslim/Jewish/'a.n.other religion' doctors should be forced to carry out abortions even though it is against their beliefs?

Rob

No I don't.

I think individuals have a right not to do things they genuinely believe are wrong and a liberal democratic society has a duty to accommodate them.

But there is an obvious difference between giving an individual the right not to - in their terms - murder unborn babies and allowing an institution the right to disobey a law.

There is no law - and there never will be a law - that says you must carry out abortions - but there is a law that says you must not discriminate againt homosexuals.

There will be plenty of Catholics that don't have a problem with same sex adoption; if the church cares about looking after disadvantaged children rather than political power struggles it would allow conscientious objectors to staff the centres.

Rob Holmes · Jan 24, 2007

cjd said:
There is no law - and there never will be a law - that says you must carry out abortions - but there is a law that says you must not discriminate againt homosexuals.

Is it legal to discriminate against religions then ?

Rob

cjd · Jan 24, 2007

IT Help Direct said:
Is it legal to discriminate against religions then ?

Rob

Sorry, I'm not following that one.....do you mean can B&Bs put up notices say "sorry no Catholics"?

Rob Holmes · Jan 24, 2007

Well some could argue that the government is discriminating against religious organisations by forcing this law.

Rob

cjd · Jan 24, 2007

IT Help Direct said:
Well some could argue that the government is discriminating against religious organisations by forcing this law.

Rob

Well yes, that is exactly what it is doing. In the same way that it discriminates against people who drive too fast, steal from shops, pay too small wages, employ under age workers, use unsafe machinery, go fox hunting, sell out of date food, steal from shipwrecks etc etc.

The law discriminates on behalf of society as a whole. The Catholic church wishes to be exempt from a UK law brought in by a democratically elected government - what's so special about them?

Jan 24, 2007

There are alot of crossovers here. As I commented earlier, I do not credit the Catholic church as being a Christian church. This issue only highlights that fact. Our 'view' of a Chrisitan church is quite blurred if we are not knowledgeable about biblical teachings.
If you are a Christian then you would live your life according to the teachings of Christ and the Biblical standards set down in Bible. The Catholic church does not do this, the Catholic church has many twisted doctrinal issues and this is one of them.
On one hand they are claiming that same sex adoption is wrong yet they also have members of their ministry who are homosexual. This is a double standard and whilst I agree with their comments regarding same sex adoption I take whatever the Catholic church says with a pinch of salt.
As for a previous questions / comments -
We do not have any homosexual people in the church at present, if however someone came in who was, then he/she would be welcomed with open arms. The question of them remaining in the church depends on them realising that the homosexualilty is wrong in Gods eyes. If they refuse to accept Gods word on this then they would be unable to stay in the church as this would be detrimental to the church and how it is viewed by non-churchgoers etc.
there is obviously a period of 'grace ' and people are not expected to run around the church suddenly shouting...'i'm cured'

RUSSETK, I would not class the place your friend went to as a church. This sounds more like a fanatical group / cult group who have some very wierd views and practices. This behaviour would be unacceptable in our church.
ARHIANN, when you refer to stoning people to death. this was an Old Testament issue which was used to deal out punishment to those who had comitted various crimes. This was very much man made thing. We see in the New Testament that Christ stops a woman from being stoned by levelling the comment ' let he who cast the first stone be without sin'. This means that we should not go around stoning people because they have comitted adultery. Christ asks us to look at our own lives and consider our 'crimes' against God and ask ourselves ....should we be stoned aswell.
The big issue their is to forgive people and seek their repentance of the crime.

cjd · Jan 24, 2007

hedgehog0045 said:
We do not have any homosexual people in the church at present, if however someone came in who was, then he/she would be welcomed with open arms. The question of them remaining in the church depends on them realising that the homosexualilty is wrong in Gods eyes. If they refuse to accept Gods word on this then they would be unable to stay in the church as this would be detrimental to the church and how it is viewed by non-churchgoers etc.

I realise that logical arguments will always fail in the face of irrational belief - but if god mad man (and woman), then he made homosexual man (and woman). So how can homosexuality 'be wrong in the eyes of god'?

Rob Holmes · Jan 24, 2007

cjd said:
Well yes, that is exactly what it is doing. In the same way that it discriminates against people who drive too fast, steal from shops, pay too small wages, employ under age workers, use unsafe machinery, go fox hunting, sell out of date food, steal from shipwrecks etc etc.

Shame volunteers who just want to place children in what they believe is the best home get lumped in that category. I guess secular placement organisations that discriminate against placing kids in 'religious' homes would get lumped in there as crims too.

cjd said:
The law discriminates on behalf of society as a whole. The Catholic church wishes to be exempt from a UK law brought in by a democratically elected government - what's so special about them?

I don't know whats so special about them mate - I guess they raised their voice because they are passionately involved in this area - other organisations will probably make some noise when they realise they are affected too.

Hopefully they'll carry on placing kids in homes despite the legislation - wouldn't be nice to see the alternative.

Rob

Jan 24, 2007

Yes, God made man and woman. He made then to be joined together as 'one flesh' as the Bible puts it. God did not create men / women as homosexuals, that is a choice made by those individuals. God gave us all a free will to either live by his standards and reap eternal life or go against his standards and reap the consequences of an eternal separation from him. This works the same as say the law regarding speeding. You know what is the right thing to do yet you have the choice to speed and pay the consequences or stay within the standards and not get nicked

Cookie Consent

Essential

Analytics

Marketing

Catholics, Homosexuals, Discrimination & Adoption

.Spiralling.

leemason

CG Effect

.Spiralling.

fastfences

Founder of UKBF

Hayles

Rhyl Lightworks

Russetk